Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Bosnia

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking in conjunction with the Bosnian authorities to ensure that all those involved in the murder of Paul Goodall are brought to justice.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The killing was a dreadful act and a tragedy for Mr. Goodall and his family and I would like to say again how very sorry I am for all those who have suffered from the loss. We continue to press the Bosnian Government to conclude without delay their investigation into the murder. Our chargé d'affaires in Sarajevo has raised the matter with the Justice Minister and the Deputy Interior Minister as well as with the judicial authorities in Zenica who will be responsible for any legal action.

Mr. Prentice: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he appreciate people's real concern that not enough is being done to pursue the matter with urgency? Will he confirm that, for two months following the murder of Mr. Goodall, there was little or no contact between the Overseas Development Administration and the Bosnian authorities? Will he ask the Minister to press the Bosnian authorities to release a report on the progress of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody of Mr. Abdul Algatani, who is one of the alleged assassins of Paul Goodall?

Mr. Hogg: The Government have, indeed, been pressing the Bosnian authorities to conclude their investigations. It is highly desirable that we should know more about the circumstances in which Mr. Algatani escaped. It is important to keep in mind the fact that, in many respects, Bosnia is in a state of anarchy, and that stands in the way of the usual prosecution of such matters. We will, however, continue to press the Bosnian authorities.

EU Budget

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made to prevent fraud within the European Union budget; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced a joint action proposal, under title VI of the treaty on European Union, to combat serious fraud against the Community budget. The European Commission has also recently tabled an anti-fraud strategy, which is under consideration by the Council.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the level of fraud and waste of taxpayers' money in the European Union is unacceptably high? Does the Maastricht treaty allow any additional powers to help combat such abuse and misuse of public funds?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend. Fraud is still far too prevalent in the European Community and we are determined to do something further about it. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes: the Maastricht treaty gives additional and important powers to the European Court of Auditors and an assurance that its observations and recommendations will be acted on. In addition, the European Parliament can interest itself further in this issue, and I very much hope that it does.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can there be any justification at all for the Commission's failing to publish the report which it has on fraud in member states?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We believe that such documents should be published if their publication would enhance the action that we and the Commission together are taking against fraud.

Sir Peter Hordern: I welcome the additional powers given to the European Parliament to question the Commissioners about fraud, but, in view of the extensive fraud that has proceeded for so many years, is not it necessary to make it a condition that grants from the European Commission are not given to member countries until all cases of fraud have been cleared up?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend makes an important suggestion and he will be pleased to know that, at our insistence, the new regulations governing the structural and cohesion funds now insist on proper prior appraisal of projects, a value-for-money test and subsequent scrutiny to ensure that the money has been properly applied.

Ms Quin: Is not it the case that, in the Council of Ministers last year, the Government tried to argue against increased expenditure in respect of fraud, and that, in doing so, were at odds with their own MEPs, who voted in the European Parliament for the package of further measures against fraud? Does not that show once again that the Government are frequently at odds with their own MEPs in Strasbourg? The Government are presumably absolutely delighted at Labour's sweeping victory last week because they now have fewer of their own MEPs to disagree with.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: An increased number of Labour MEPs is extremely bad news for the cause of budgetary discipline in the European Union. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government give the very highest priority to cracking down on fraud in the Community. We are satisfied that the anti-fraud unit, both in the Commission and in this country, is properly and


adequately staffed. But such problems are not dealt with simply by throwing more money at them. Budgetary discipline must apply to the strategy against fraud as it does to every other area of expenditure.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a very good thing that, in future, recalcitrant Governments—and it is in such Governments and not within the Community itself that most of the fraud takes place—will be fined in addition to having to return the money? Does he agree that that will have a salutary effect, particularly on the Italians who have already had to cough up quite a lot of money? In response to my hon. Friend's European Parliament observation, as he well knows, the European Parliament keeps a very close watch on such matters through the Committee on Budgetary Control which saves the Community hundreds of millions of ecu.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the Maastricht treaty brings in fines against member states that fail to live up to legislative obligations.

Rwanda

Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the British Government intend to take in respect of the situation in Rwanda.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We are joining fully in international efforts to bring a halt to the bloodshed. On 8 June, the Security Council approved the deployment of an expanded United Nations force. We are keen and ready to provide logistic support and we are looking with the UN at ways in which we can contribute. Since the start of the crises in Rwanda, we have given over £11 million in humanitarian aid.

Ms Jackson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does not he agree that, in the light of the news that reached us early today of another fearful massacre—this time of 60 young boys—and of a letter that was pushed into a journalist's hand by the citizens of Kigali who are begging for help because they believe that they will be slaughtered at any minute, the Government should be bringing pressure to bear to ensure that the 5,500 troops are deployed immediately and not phased in in that war-torn country?

Mr. Hurd: The sooner the better, I agree. However, those troops must be equipped and transported. Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Congo and Mali are all African countries which have offered troops. The secretariat is seeking to match the equipment and transport with the troops. As I said in my original answer, we are in close touch with it about what help we can give, for example, by providing trucks.

Mr. Lester: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to consider the Secretary-General's observations on the state of the United Nations in respect of Uganda, in which he admitted that the international community had failed in its responsibility and used words such as "deplorable", at least to describe its reaction? What thoughts do the Government have in respect of trying to adjust the United Nations so that it can deal with such situations, which are becoming all too prevalent?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend said "Uganda", but I think he meant Rwanda. The UN had a force there. The Security Council concluded at a certain point that the force was at severe risk and that it was no longer doing a useful job. It was therefore reduced in size. There were second thoughts and it was decided, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) pointed out, to redeploy an increased force. That is now happening. These are matters of extraordinarily difficult judgment in a civil war. It is not easy for the Security Council or the Secretary-General to decide how and when to intervene. We fully support resolution 925, which provides for the force of 5,500, and we will do our best to see that it happens.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is not the response of the United Nations in the face of this horrendous tragedy deplorably slow? Why was a resolution agreed to authorise a force but not one to deploy it? Why did it take several more weeks to agree to the deployment of the force? Why has that force still not been fully deployed? Tragically, the momentum of the slaughter continues while the laggardly pace of the international response is dismaying communities all over the world.

Mr. Hurd: The Security Council decides that a force should be sent. The Secretary-General then has to find member countries that are willing to contribute troops; then he has to find the equipment and transport to get them there. Of course, that should happen more quickly; it depends on the response of nation states, and it always will.

Italy

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Italy.

Mr. Hurd: They are excellent.

Mr. Streeter: I thank my right hon. Friend for his extensive reply. Does he agree that the newly elected right-wing Government in Italy show every sign of being a strong new ally to our country in our crusade to fashion a European Union in accordance with the wishes of its people—not a single superstate but a family of independent sovereign nations trading and working together?

Mr. Hurd: It is early days, but my hon. Friend is right. The new Italian Government have made clear their strong commitment to open markets and their desire to avoid unnecessary regulation from Brussels. I warmly welcome that approach. I look forward to welcoming the Italian Foreign Minister here before the end of the month and to working closely with him.

Mr. Winnick: Why does not the Foreign Secretary understand that what happened recently in Italy makes a mockery of all the efforts by the allied troops to liberate Rome 50 years ago this month? Instead of appeasing those fascists, why does not the Foreign Secretary say that many people in this country—the large majority—view with disgust the fact that such fascist swine are now included in the Italian Cabinet?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in patronising and offensive nonsense. The Ministers have been democratically elected and properly appointed. [HON. MEMBERS: "So was Hitler."] The Labour party is making a


fool of itself. I shall be interested to know whether Labour Members' attitude is endorsed by those on their Front Bench. Having looked at the individuals, the programme on which they were elected and the posts that they occupy, we believe that it is right to co-operate in a friendly way with the new Italian Government—the new democratic Italian Government—as with the last. I am ashamed of the intervention from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Batiste: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to discuss with his opposite number in Italy their choice for the next President of the European Commission?

Mr. Hurd: Only in very general terms.

Dr. John Cunningham: As the right hon. Gentleman has asked for my response, he shall have it. We want nothing to do with neo-fascists, whether they are in Italy or whether they are the neo-fascists of France who were the only supporters of the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to the social chapter. I hope that he feels comfortable in the company of neo-fascists; we certainly do not. Will he tell the House whether it is his intention to share membership of the European People's party with neo-fascists—yes or no?

Mr. Hurd: That is certainly not a matter for me. On the first point, before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further down the foolish path adopted by his Back Benchers, will he please look at the members and the programme of the Allianza Nazionale, which is now part of the Italian Government? Will he look at what they stand for and how they were elected? If he does that, he will find that it is very foolish to go further down the path that I have already described as patronising nonsense.

Treaty Ratification

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to change the procedures related to the ratification of treaties.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have no plans to change our procedures for ratifying treaties to which we are signatories.

Mr. Trimble: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is no longer realistic to regard the other member states of the European Union as foreign countries and that, as a consequence, it is no longer realistic to regard agreements entered into—such as any that might arise out of the intergovernmental conference in 1996—as foreign treaties with which the House need take little concern. Would it not therefore be sensible, well in advance of 1996, to amend our procedures for the ratification of fundamental agreements with other member states so that they can be thoroughly discussed in the House before, during and after any such conference? That would ensure that the House is not asked again to deal with fundamental constitutional matters on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and forced to act as a rubber stamp.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not think that I accept the hon. Gentleman's reasoning. Any future treaty of similar importance to the Maastricht treaty will be brought before the House before the country ratifies it.

Mr. Marlow: Given that a single currency would mean taxation decided centrally and a unified single European state, can my hon. Friend ensure that if any such treaty were brought forward on the basis of a single currency, the ratification process would be such that that treaty could not be ratified in the United Kingdom? Even better, could he make sure that there is no ambiguity in the minds of the British people after the election results last week? They do not want a single currency and the Government should not want a single currency.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Government's position is clearly set out in the Maastricht treaty and its protocols. My hon. Friend should have been pleased, and I believe is satisfied, with the opt-out from the requirements of stage 3 achieved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Foulkes: Is not it true that the Maastricht treaty, which the Government forced through on a three-line whip, and the Single European Act, which they forced through on a three-line whip and a guillotine, are the two most centralising treaties since the treaty of Rome, and that for the Government to pretend that they are not in favour of centralisation within the European Union is hypocrisy which brings this parliamentary democracy into disrepute?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. The centralising tendency in the European Union, although supported by the Opposition parties, was checked in the Maastricht treaty which, for example, enshrined the subsidiarity principle in treaty law for the first time.

South Africa

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with South Africa.

Mr. Hurd: We will continue to give full support to President Mandela and his transitional Government of National Unity as they consolidate a stable democracy in South Africa. We should develop and expand our political, economic and commercial relations with South Africa to the benefit of both countries.

Mr. Spring: Given the considerable opening up of opportunities following the cessation of sanctions against South Africa, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that all help and encouragement will be given to British exporters to access that growing and important market in order to capitalise on the excellent relations that exist between the United Kingdom and South Africa?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. Our exports to South Africa were £1 billion last year and £295 million in the first quarter of this year: it is still an expanding trend. We warmly encourage that. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will go to South Africa next month with a large party of senior business men to urge that expansion forward.

Sir David Steel: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, following the formation of the new Government in South Africa, we should look forward not only to their full participation in the Commonwealth but to their playing a leading role in the South Africa Development Coordination Conference, where they will be joined by the new democratically elected Government of Malawi whose


President will be visiting London for the first time tomorrow? Is not southern Africa, in contrast to some other parts of the continent, becoming a new region of hope?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a long way to go in countries such as Angola and Mozambique, but we certainly warmly welcome the return of South Africa to the Commonwealth on the first day of this month.

Dr. Howells: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that during his recent visit to this country, Vice-President de Klerk expressed concern that South Africa should not now be treated as a former trouble spot but should be left well alone to get on and solve its problems? The economic future of South Africa will be tied up with those of half a dozen nations to the north of it and South Africa requires the maximum amount of help from the United Kingdom and the European Union. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the European Union is made aware of the importance of helping South Africa to sort out its economy and the economies of the countries that lie to the north of it?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. We and the forthcoming German presidency have already laid plans for that. The Germans are to take various initiatives on behalf of the European Union during the second half of this year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—one of the most important ways is trade and I look forward to the initiatives very much. We have been urging a new agreement between the European Union and South Africa to facilitate trade.

Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend has already said that one of the major problems about deploying troops in Rwanda is the lack of logistical support. Would not it be appropriate for South Africa to be approached, as a country which will be coming back into the Commonwealth in the very near future, and asked to provide that logistical support, which it could do far more easily than almost any other country in the world?

Mr. Hurd: I am happy to say that South Africa is already back in the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend made an important suggestion and I will see that the Secretary-General of the United Nations considers whether there are requests that he could make to South Africa that he has not already made. We are helping the South Africans in one of their main tasks, which is bringing the different armed forces in the country together into a more united national army. A British military assistance and training team, made up of 31 people with a brigadier, is established there for that purpose.

Rwanda

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Rwanda.

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State, for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Rwanda.

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government are making to end the killing in Rwanda.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said a few moments ago, we are playing a full part in efforts to bring about a settlement in Rwanda and are providing substantial amounts of relief for the large number of refugees displaced by the fighting.

Mr. Hanson: In supporting the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), may I ask what actions the Government are taking with regard to food and emergency equipment for the 1 million-plus refugees resident on the Tanzania-Rwanda border? That situation cannot be tolerated and all help must be given by the Government.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend mentioned that bilateral aid of £11 million has been paid since the start of the crisis. It is helping mainly with refugees and with the collection and burial of bodies, including those in Lake Victoria. An Overseas Development Administration team recently visited the region to assess the situation at first hand and will return there in early July.

Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that this country is sickened by the grotesque slaughter of men, women and children in Rwanda and that it must end as soon as possible? Will he also confirm that Britain is the fourth largest contributor to United Nations peacekeeping forces throughout the world and that the Government will use their influence within the UN and the international community to do all that they can to bring an end to the ghastly slaughter as quickly as possible?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Everyone must agree with my hon. Friend's words. I confirm that we are the fourth largest contributor to UN peacekeeping operations. We cannot be accused of default on that ground. All along, we have been very active in calling for effective and swift United Nations action in Rwanda.

Mr. Cohen: Did not the Government make a mistake in April when they effectively voted in the UN Security Council for UN disengagement from Rwanda, reducing troops there to just 270? Should not they have been pressing then—as they should now—for the establishment of safe areas in that country and for the forces to secure them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Secretary-General submitted his report on 2 June following those Security Council decisions in April, and on 8 June there was a further vote to adopt resolution 925 and endorse the arrangements for the deployment of the expanded United Nations Aid Mission in Rwanda—UNAMIR—which is the situation that we now face.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend willing to comment on the world's attitude to the colossal number of murders and missing persons in Rwanda? Let us suppose that 500,000 black people had been murdered by white people or vice versa—the world would rightly have been in uproar. But if 500,000 black people are killed by other black people the world seems to regard it as not quite so important.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend has expressed his opinion, and we are doing everything that we can in our way to bring about a change in the dreadful events. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, seven African


countries are contributing troops and five countries—including ourselves—are prepared to help with logistical support for those troops.

Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware that, in opening the meeting of the Organisation of African Unity, President Mandela said that the Rwandan situation was a stern rebuke for us all and that it reflected on a crisis of leadership? Does he agree that that reproof goes far beyond the African continent to those countries in Europe which have encouraged the Rwandan regime to spend money on arms, rather than to develop services for its people so that there would be some harmonisation in the country? Will he urge the UN to ensure that there is a tighter formulation to govern the behaviour of those countries which export arms, so that we might be able to prevent future Rwandas?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that a crisis of leadership in Britain is responsible for the situation in Rwanda. He is suggesting somehow that the British Government are responsible. We are doing what we can, as my right hon. Friend and I have explained in the most careful terms, to bring about a change in the dreadful situation.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given the fact that the appalling atrocities in Rwanda are exacerbated and made possible by the large amount of arms that are available —it is estimated that sub-Saharan Africa is importing in the region of $7 billion worth of arms every year—is not there a strong case for making any aid to those countries dependent upon their military spending and the proportion that it takes of their GNP?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) should be aware that the appalling slaughter about which we have read in Rwanda is not the result of arms sales by western or other countries. The crudest weapons, which would be available in any agricultural society, are being horrifically used in the terrible slaughter.

European Union

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with other members of the European Union.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We enjoy excellent relations with other members of the European Union.

Mr. Jones: Is not it clear that the Government's vacillation on policy on the European Union was decisively rejected by the British people in last week's elections? Has not the Foreign Secretary ducked out of the question because his party had one of the biggest political drubbings of modern times?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Labour party was desperate to try to keep the elections focused on every issue except Europe. The Government are certain that, when we engaged the electorate on the European issues, we had the right policies which struck the right notes.

Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the recent European elections, there was a significant move

against the kind of socialism and centralism supported by the Opposition in those countries where the electorate seemed to have focused on the European issues?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. It is noticeable that the other Opposition party with a centralising manifesto and a willingness to abandon the national veto—the Liberal Democratic party—failed conspicuously to live up to its expectations.

Mr. Hoon: Does the Minister remember the Foreign Secretary describing the idea of a two-speed Europe as a disaster? If so, how does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister's call for a multi-speed Europe? Surely a multi-speed Europe must involve at least two speeds?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There are two speeds in Europe—we are in the fast lane and the Opposition parties are in the slow lane.

Mr. Forman: What are the Government's relations with France and Germany? Are they good or improving? Do the Government intend to work closely with those two Governments in the next year or so, since they will be in the chair of the European Union?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have extremely good relations with both countries. We had a succesful summit with the French Government last year, and a recent one with German Ministers in London. As my hon. Friend reminded us, the French and German presidencies of European Union are coming up and we intend to work closely with both countries on a wide range of issues.

Mr. Benn: Will the many policy statements made by the Prime Minister during the European elections be formally tabled by the British Government at the Council of Ministers and at heads of state meetings that will occur during the next few months?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: All the policy pronouncements by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister represent a known British position and will, of course, be discussed with other member states during the coming months.

Japan

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department is doing to attract more inward investment from Japan.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Attraction of more inward investment is a high priority for our embassy in Tokyo and consulate-general in Osaka, which work closely with the Invest in Britain Bureau of the Department of Trade and Industry and with regional agencies. We shall soon open a new office in Nagoya for inward investment and trade promotion.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the new massive investment from Honda in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that it is yet another tribute to the success of our missions abroad?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I greatly welcome Honda's announcement of a further investment of £330 million in the United Kingdom, which confirms its continuing commitment to this country as a base for its car-making operations in Europe. The


Government will continue to work with the company to ensure the success of its United Kingdom operations and its many British suppliers.

Mr. Enright: Can the Minister name a single Japanese firm that does not fulfil the social contract? In fact, is not the contrary true? All Japanese firms fulfil and more the social contract and, indeed, the majority look for monetary union.

Mr. Goodlad: There are 200 Japanese manufacturing companies in this country covering a wide range of industries from electronics to consumables. Their working practices vary, as do British ones. We have made it clear that the social contract, which provides greatly increased legislative powers for the European Community in employment and social policies, would lead to damaging European Community laws being imposed in the United Kingdom. They would add to costs, cut competitiveness, destroy jobs and deprive United Kingdom employers and employees of their rights to decide the employment conditions that firms can afford. It is because this country is extremely competitive, whereas European competitiveness is declining in the world, that we have more than 41 per cent. of Japanese investment in the European Community.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While very much appreciating the tremendous importance of Japanese investment in this country, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that the Government should spend as much time seeking investment from other countries, because to do so provides us with opportunities to do business with those countries? Inward investment from Japan is important, but other countries should not be ignored, as they provide us with equal if not better opportunities.

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct— that is precisely what the Government do. In 1992–93, at least 303 inward investment decisions were made by foreign companies, which created or safeguarded more than 56,000 jobs. Since 1979, more than half a million jobs have been created by overseas companies. In 1991, overseas companies provided 17 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rogers: Hon. Members on both sides of the House applaud and support the efforts of the Government to obtain inward investment, especially for the north-east and for south Wales, where the Labour-established Welsh Development Agency has been extremely successful. Does the Minister believe that the same number of inward investments, 303, would be made in a semi-detached Britain—a Britain condemned to Europe's slow lane?

Mr. Goodlad: Britain is the preferred location for Japanese investment because we provide excellent access to the European Community market. Companies consistently refer to the welcome that they receive from the Government. The Japanese choice of the United Kingdom shows that the Government have created the right framework for companies to invest and prosper, in comparison with the position in other European countries and in comparison with the position that would prevail in the highly unlikely event of the Labour party ever gaining the reins of power.

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policies towards the former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Our aim is to secure an early settlement of the conflict in former Yugoslavia. We welcome the one-month ceasefire now in force in Bosnia. That must be extended. We support the work of the contact group. We continue to contribute to the humanitarian aid effort and to the international military presence in Bosnia.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister today publicly condemn the Greek Government for their continuing blockade of Macedonia? What effort has he made to ensure that the Greeks back down on that matter, which is crucial for the Macedonians?

Mr. Hogg: I am very concerned by the dispute between Macedonia and Greece. I agree that the embargo is wrong. I welcome the fact that the European Court is considering the embargo now. The Vance suggestions, which have been worked out in New York, deserve serious consideration by both parties.

Cuba

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last held discussions with representatives of the Cuban Government relating to common security issues in central and Latin America.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have had no such discussions.

Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister accept that the basis of common security between nations is mutual respect for, and recognition of, each other's national sovereignty? If so, why did the Government disgracefully abstain on the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly, which would have ended America's illegal contravention of Cuba's national sovereignty—its economic blockade of Cuba? Why do the United Kingdom Government preach respect for international law, but, on the international stage, remain silent when international law is brazenly broken by their patrons in Washington?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The blockade is a bilateral matter between the Governments of Cuba and the United States. For our part, we operate no such embargo and have full diplomatic relations with Cuba.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend find it difficult to answer questions from the Opposition about Cuba when they follow questions which revealed the Opposition's attitude towards the democratically elected Government of Italy, a member of the European Union? Although I have views on that matter, I accept that that Government were democratically elected. Is not it difficult to answer people who ask questions in such conflicting ways?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is obvious that the Opposition are operating a double standard. They are happy to recognise and have relations with non-elected Ministers in Cuba, which is the point of my hon. Friend's question, yet we have just heard from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen that they would refuse to meet or


recognise five elected and duly appointed Ministers of the new Italian Government. They would therefore be willing to overlook, ignore and show contempt for the democratically elected Government of modern Italy.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Has the Minister had a chance to read the report, published in May this year, of the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group, which advises the Foreign Office? It calls for a joint effort by Britain and Germany to reach an agreement on co-operation between the European Union and Cuba, so that the transition taking place in Cuba can proceed in a way that will bring stability to that area and trade to this country.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman may know that the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group visited Cuba last year and again last month. The object of those visits was to improve bilateral trade between our two countries. That is of more immediate importance than the longer-term, structural relationship between the EU and Cuba, although that may be developing on a parallel track.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not it the case that in central America and the Caribbean area security tensions have been considerably reduced since the central American republics, in contrast to Cuba, returned to democracy and since, following the defeat of the Sandinista regime, Nicaragua reduced its armed forces? Should not we be more concerned with introducing democracy and human rights into Cuba?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree. All Latin American countries now have civilian Governments, with the exception of Cuba. We look forward to an improvement in the human rights record of Cuba and we constantly urge her to allow free and fair elections.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that the blockade of Cuba that has been carried on by the USA since 1959 is an appalling interference in one nation's affairs by another? Does he recognise that the lives of the people of Cuba have been severely damaged by it? Other Governments have managed to trade successfully and normally with Cuba. Why will not he put pressure on the United States to lift the blockade and recognise Cuban Governments once and for all?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have already said in answer to another question that that is a matter between the Cuban and the American Government, but, to repeat the point, we have developing trade relations with Cuba as well as normal diplomatic relations.

Italy

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has met members of the new Italian Government to discuss recent developments in the European Union.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the new Italian Foreign Minister at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 16 and 17 May 1994.

Mr. Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that there are good links between the European Union and the emerging eastern European countries? In his recent

discussions with the new Italian Government, has he had a chance to discuss joint projects to further the support and links between the European Union and eastern Europe?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend had a successful and constructive meeting with Signor Martino, the new Italian Foreign Minister, and it was agreed to carry forward a joint initiative to develop foreign policy and justice and home affairs relations between the European Union and the newly emergent democracies of central and eastern Europe.

Mr. Galloway: Is not it true that although Signor Fini and the MSI fascists in Italy were democratically elected, so were Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler before them? Cannot the Government sense at least some unease in this country, as we celebrate the anniversaries currently, about the fact that British men left their bones in the soil of Europe to liberate this continent from fascism, yet fascism is back in the elected Government of Italy?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman's record of support for non-elected dictators is not altogether an honourable one, but I can repeat the important point that those newly elected Italian Ministers have made quite clear their support and respect for the 1948 Italian constitution, which is fully democratic in all respects.

Mr. Dykes: Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that Signor Martino is extremely enthusiastic about the Maastricht treaty and the European Union?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are all enthusiastic about the Maastricht treaty and the European Union.

Mr. Janner: Did the Foreign Secretary raise with the Italian Foreign Secretary the concern, which I know is felt on both sides of the House, about the resurgence of neo-fascism in Italy? Did he discuss it at all with his opposite number and does he share the concern that so many of us feel about the growth of fascism and racism in so many parts of Europe?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Of course, we would be concerned if there was a resurgence of fascism in Italy. It was precisely because we are assured about the democratic credentials and aims of the new Italian Government that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the new Italian Government and agreed a programme of future developments with that Government.

Argentina

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Argentina.

Mr. Hurd: We have made some good progress in many areas. There are regular high-level contacts. British exports to Argentina grew by 50 per cent. last year and there are good investment opportunities. We continue to disagree about sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, but we have an agreement on fisheries conservation and we expect to meet the Argentines next month to discuss oil. We also co-operate internationally; for example, British and Argentine troops are working side by side in UN peacekeeping operations, both in the former Yugoslavia and in Cyprus.

Mr. Coombs: May I tell my right hon. Friend of the great pleasure given to the Falkland islanders and to their many friends in this country and around the world by his visit to the islands earlier this year? Does he agree that as long as Argentina retains its claim of sovereignty over the islands, there will inevitably be a black cloud over our efforts to improve relations with it? What part of the Government's policy is it now to persuade the Argentine Government to drop that claim so as to guarantee the long-term safety and security of the Falklands?

Mr. Hurd: I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the islands after Easter and I learned a lot from it and from the islanders. My hon. Friend is right: we have managed to make good progress on other matters with the Argentine Government, setting aside the disagreement over sovereignty, which remains.
My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that, once it is possible for Argentina to drop her claim to sovereignty, the possibilities of co-operation in the south Atlantic, to the benefit of both countries and of the islanders, will be very great indeed.

Mr. Tony Banks: In the event of President Menem requesting the extradition of Baroness Thatcher to face various charges in Argentina, will the British Government give him their full co-operation? I suspect that if they did, it might do something to restore their flagging popularity.

Mr. Hurd: No such request has been made.

Mauritius

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Mauritius.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We enjoy a close and constructive relationship with Mauritius.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that fine reply. Does he accept that Britain is popular in Mauritius and that Mr. Jugnauth and his Government are very friendly towards this country because of their close educational links with it? If he agrees, how is he seeking to extend that principle?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Mauritian Foreign Minister recently said that relations are entering a new period of understanding and co-operation, and he has seen my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary twice in the past year.
As for education, under an agreement called the Laureate scheme, we are providing nearly £3 million over a five year period to fund scholarships which enable 13 Mauritians to come to Britain as students.

China

Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relationship with the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Goodlad: We attach considerable importance to maintaining and building on our wide-ranging relationship with China. We have already achieved a number of successes: for instance, our exports to China in 1993 were 72 per cent. higher than in 1992. We continue to make

representations to the People's Republic on human rights issues. A key aspect of the relationship is Hong Kong. Although we have not yet resolved our recent disagreement over the detailed constitutional arrangements for Hong Kong, our immediate priority is to develop a co-operative relationship in other areas, such as the work of the joint liaison group and the new airport in Hong Kong.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Government continue to press the Government of the People's Republic of China on the issue of human rights, not only in China but in the future Hong Kong? As the Government are no doubt aware, many in this country are worried that human rights in Hong Kong will be severely eroded once the colony is taken over by China. What assurances can he give us that that will not happen?

Mr. Goodlad: Human rights in China, including the situation in Tibet, are a matter of deep concern. They are on the agenda at every ministerial meeting and we and our European Union partners have repeatedly urged the Chinese authorities to adhere to internationally recognised standards of behaviour and to improve their human rights record.
The Hong Kong bill of rights gives local effect to the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the body of local human rights jurisprudence is steadily accumulating. The joint declaration of 1984 provides that the international covenant will continue to apply to Hong Kong after 1997. The joint declaration also guarantees the continuation of Hong Kong's existing legal system.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten us as to what line the Chinese Government are taking over the nuclear activities of North Korea? Does he agree that if any encouragement is given to North Korea to export nuclear arms or equipment to, say, the middle east, it could be very serious for the security of the world?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend raises a serious matter. We are in close touch with the Chinese in the Security Council. The Chinese are in favour of a denuclearised Korean peninsula, but say that the North Korean issue should be dealt with through negotiations. We believe that China has privately urged North Korea to act responsibly. It was associated with two statements by the president of the Security Council urging North Korea to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Consultations are under way in New York on a possible sanctions resolution, after the flagrant breach by North Korea of the nuclear safeguards agreement and, of course, we hope for Chinese co-operation.
On the middle east, China is co-operating with both Pakistan and Iran on civil nuclear projects. We encourage China to behave responsibly and will continue to encourage it to join and abide by guidelines through the nuclear supplies group.

Mr. Gapes: In view of the position in Hong Kong, does the Minister support the proposals made by many people there, and by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, for a human rights commission to be established so that human rights can be protected after 1997?

Mr. Goodlad: The Government are considering the report of the Select Committee very carefully and will respond in due course.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern in China about the new restrictions introduced by the EC on imports of items such as toys and shoes? Although I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having voted against the decision by the EC, does he agree that it is totally inconsistent with GAIT and that it destroys jobs in China and many jobs in the United Kingdom as well?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right. The United Kingdom voted against the quotas package at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 February, because we did not believe that the quotas introduced, particularly on toys, were justified. During the negotiations, we succeeded in getting some proposals for quotas withdrawn and other proposed quotas, including toys, increased, although not enough. We are pressing the Commission to show extra flexibility in the management of quotas, particularly to enable goods already contracted for before the February decision to be exempted from quota limits. We shall also seek an early review of quotas in the hope of securing increases or, better still, their abolition.

Middle East

Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from consular officials in Jerusalem on the implementation of peace agreements in the west bank and Gaza.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The reports are frequent, relevant and highly informative.

Mr. Burden: Does the Minister agree that unless the peace process in the middle east goes forward it could rapidly go into reverse? What plans do the Government have to increase the amount of practical assistance being given by Britain to the Palestine National Authority, other than in policing? Will he particularly consider assistance through secondments along the lines of the know-how fund?

Mr. Hogg: On the latter part of the question, the British Government's support, bilateral and multilateral, is around £70 million over the next three years. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is important that there

should be early progress. I should like to see Mr. Arafat back in Jericho. It is very important that the Palestinians take control in the five sectoral areas covered by the September agreement. Perhaps most important, it is very urgent that the parties get down to the final stage of the negotiations as speedily as possible.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the recent hijacking of a Lebanese citizen from Lebanese territory by the Israeli defence forces did nothing to help the peace process in that part of the world? Have suitable comments been passed to the Israeli Government? On reflection, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the timing of the announcement to lift the arms embargo on Israel was a little unfortunate?

Mr. Hogg: I do not seek to justify the Israelis' hijacking of the gentleman from Lebanon. Let me also say that that does not promote the release of Ron Arad, if he is alive. Nevertheless, his continued detention is a disgrace and he should be released by whoever is holding him.

Mr. Gunnell: The Minister will be aware that there seems to have been some hold-up in the provision of money for the Palestine National Authority. People are said to be concerned about accounting procedures. Does the Minister agree that this may prove to be a "Catch-22"? Without the money, the accounting procedures cannot be set up; without the accounting procedures, the authority cannot obtain the money. Is not it possible to engage in discussions with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—in fact, I believe that Ministers have already done so—to ensure that proper accounting procedures can be set up, through UNRWA, to enable administrative help to go into Gaza and Jericho as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right: there have been discussions, which took place on 8 June. As a result of those discussions, some $40 million of additional money has been pledged. However, the hon. Gentleman should not overlook the importance of proper accounting and disbursement procedures, without which the money might go astray.

Points of Order

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm whether you have received an application today for a private notice question on the rail dispute?

Madam Speaker: I do not confirm one way or the other whether I have received an application for a private notice question. The hon. Gentleman might care to rephrase his point of order; I shall do my best to be helpful.

Mr. Dunn: Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that you are in a position to receive an application for a private notice question on the rail dispute? Today, the work and lives of many thousands of my constituents have been disrupted by the actions of a trade union, which all the contenders for the Labour party leadership have signally failed to condemn. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Private notice questions must come to my office before 12 o'clock, as I think the entire House is aware.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be helpful for me to instruct the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on procedure, as he clearly does not understand it? It is well in order for the Government to make a statement on any issue—

Madam Speaker: Order. I want no instruction on how I should behave in the Chair. I have just informed the House that private notice questions are looked at by me at 12 o'clock, and decisions are then made.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it related?

Mr. Coombs: No, Madam Speaker, it is an entirely different point of order. Given the craven attitude of Opposition Members to the rail unions that have caused such enormous—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Coombs: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat immediately, or I shall name him. I am tired of listening to points of order that are not points of order, and of the way in which points of order are abused in the House.

Mr. Coombs: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. If he has a point of order for me to deal with which does not refer to the behaviour of other hon. Members, I will listen to it, but I will listen to it only if it concerns me as Speaker. The hon. Gentleman must now determine how he will behave following that warning.

Mr. Coombs: My point of order does relate to your duties as Speaker, Madam Speaker. I was going to ask whether the attitude of Opposition Members to the rail unions—which is not unrelated to the fact that many of them are sponsored by trade unions, and in particular by the rail unions—ought not, in the circumstances, be referred—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not a point of order for me. He has totally abused my faith in him. Now may we get on with the procedures of the House?

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay
Mr. Peter Thurnham
Mr. Quentin Davies

BILL PRESENTED

MARRIAGE

Mr. Gyles Brandreth, supported by Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mrs. Angela Knight, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Rod Richards, Mr. Raymond S. Robertson and Mr. Keith Vaz, presented a Bill to amend the Marriage Act 1949 so as to enable civil marriages to be solemnised on premises approved for the purpose by local authorities and so as to provide for further cases in which marriages may be solemnised in registration districts in which neither party to the marriage resides; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 24 June, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.96(Scottish Estimates).
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

Class XIV Vote 17 Education, Arts and Libraries, Scotland.

Class XIV Vote 18 Student Awards, Scotland.

[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Hereditary Peers (Democratic Rights)

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the right of hereditary peers and peeresses to sit in the House of Lords; to establish their right to vote in general elections and to stand for election to the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
In spending so much time, as the House does, on detailed, complex and intricate legislation, we sometimes miss the glaringly obvious. My Bill deals with the glaringly obvious — that in a democracy it is absurd that people should inherit the right to legislate.
My Bill does not attempt to deal with the overall question of the reform of the House of Lords or whether we need a second Chamber. It deals simply with hereditary members of the peerage.
The House of Lords has the most bizarre and indefensible composition of any parliamentary chamber in the world. At the last count, there were 1,203 Members of the Lords, 759 of whom inherited their title. Those 759 born peers are there because they were born in the right bed at the right time.
I need hardly remind the House of the bizarre ways in which those 759 people carne to obtain their titles— they are varied and colourful. The dukes are a prime example. Four of the dukes— of Buccleuch and Queensberry, of Grafton, of Richmond Lennox and Gordon and of Saint Albans— are descendants of the various mistresses of Charles II. One is by Lucy Walter, one by Barbara Villiers, one by Louise de Kéerouaille and the other by Nell Gwynne.
I have nothing against Charles II's mistresses or their descendants, but I cannot for the life of me see why they should inherit the right to legislate.
If my Bill were passed, it would not make much difference to the lives of those people. When the figures were last checked, one of those dukes was on permanent leave of absence and the other three attended on just 32 occasions out of a possible 736 attendances. Of the 759 hereditary peers, no fewer than 70 per cent. attended fewer than 5 per cent. of sittings and 44 per cent.— 333 peers — did not attend the Lords at all.
We are frequently told by traditionalists that the hereditary peerage is just a quaint British custom and that it does no harm or damage, so why bother with it? Sadly, that is not true.
Neither can it be said that there is any received wisdom among those hereditary peers. One of the most important votes in the Lords in recent years was the poll tax vote on 23 May 1988. The Lords had a chance to stop a Bill that everyone, apart from the then Conservative party, knew was ludicrous and that now everyone, including the Conservative party, knows was ludicrous. Their lordships were solidly in favour of the poll tax— 317 were in favour and 183 were against. That made a total of 500, so 702 either abstained, could not make it to the Chamber or did not understand the question.
The attendance of 500 was one of the biggest this century. Hon. Members may have read that one of their lordships said in the debate that one of the nice things about the debate was that one met so many old friends that an one had not seen for many years.
It is not always realised that the hereditary peers passed the poll tax legislation. The life peers voted marginally

against— 125 to 97— but the hereditary peers tipped the balance, with 54 against and 220 in favour. So much for the common sense of the aristocracy.
That vote should come as no surprise to us, because their lordships vote, as we do most of the time, according to party affiliation. Of the 759 hereditary peers, only 364 are listed as supporting a political party. Of those, 12 are Labour, 24 are Liberal Democrats and 328 are Conservatives. If I were to include the other 395 who have not answered the question, I have no doubt that the Conservative majority would be even larger.
I read a recent debate held in another place on its own future. It was incredibly smug and self-satisfied and, in the light of the figures that I have just cited, I find it staggering that one peer could say, "Your Lordships' House stands as an independent bulwark"—

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from the current Session? If so, I remind him that that is not allowed and that he must paraphrase.

Mr. Grocott: I am paraphrasing, Madam Speaker. The noble Lord said in effect that the House of Lords was an independent bulwark against extremism at either end of the political spectrum.
I do not want to make this a party political issue so I shall now quote Winston Churchill who, when talking about the hereditary peerage in the early part of the century, described the House of Lords as
one-sided, hereditary, unpurged, unrepresentative, irresponsible, absentee … filled with old doddering peers, cute financial magnates, clever wire pullers and big brewers with bulbous noses.
I do not agree about the bulbous noses, but I think that we can all understand his drift. He was speaking at the beginning of the century, but the social composition of the House of Lords has not changed that much.
According to the latest figures that I have seen, 60 per cent. of hereditary peers were described as fanners and landowners, 15 per cent. as industrialists and 12 per cent. as being involved in banking, finance and insurance. Even so—I again paraphrase a debate held the other day in the House of Lords—one peer in effect said without any hint of vanity or complacency that it was right to acknowledge that diversity was their greatest strength.
My simple proposition is that in a democracy it is ludicrous for people to inherit the right to legislate, and I am sure that the Bill will have all-party support. In fact, one of the inspirations for my presenting the Bill was the Prime Minister's rallying call for a classless society. I have not been able to check whether he will support the Bill, but, in the light of his known position on a classless society, I think that he should be behind me on this matter.
Should there still be any waverers among the Tories, let me put to them a simple proposition. If, in the Russia of today, for example, there were a Baron Trotsky, a Viscount Stalin or a Lord Lenin, the Tories would rightly be saying that in a democracy it was ludicrous that people should inherit titles, and we would say the same if there were descendants of Bismarck in the German Parliament or descendants of Napoleon in the French Parliament. However, there is a more urgent reason for dealing with the problem, and quickly.
There is a growing trend, which I welcome, for Members of Parliament to act as observers of elections abroad to ascertain whether voting systems are democratic. Of course, we can send people from the House of Lords.
Have people queuing outside polling stations in hot African countries ever been questioned by a duke, marquess, earl or viscount about how well their system was operating? If I were in such a queue, my response would be, "Physician, heal thyself."
The democratic rights of the House of Commons have been fought for and they are precious. Your symbolic struggle, Madam Speaker, to be the Speaker of the House is symptomatic of the struggle of democratic power against hereditary power and you, perhaps more than anyone else, are the symbol of that. There are more hereditary peers in Parliament than democratically elected Members of this House. Their right to vote and to legislate for the people whom we represent would be laughable were it not so serious. It is indefensible in a democracy. It requires a simple Act of Parliament to put it right, a step that no one who cares about democracy could oppose. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, Mr. George Foulkes, Ms Kate Hoey, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. Jeff Rooker and Mr. Ernie Ross.

HEREDITARY PEERS (DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS)

Mr. Bruce Grocott accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the right of hereditary peers and peeresses to sit in the House of Lords; to establish their right to vote in general elections and to stand for election to the House of Commons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clause 2, New Clause 11, New Clause 1, government New Clauses, remaining New Clauses, amendments to Clauses and amendments to Schedules.—[Mr. Redwood.]

New clause 2

TRANSFER OF COMMUNITIES

?Where a community meeting under the 1972 Act resolves that that community should be transferred from the local government area in which it is situated by virtue of this Act to another such area, being an area contiguous with the community, then, provided that no fewer than one half of the local government electors in the community have voted for that resolution, the Secretary of State shall by order amend Schedule 1 to this Act to give effect to that resolution.'.—[Dr. Marek.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 11—Referendum on boundaries (No. 2)—
?(1) If, by resolution, the council of any district existing at the time this Act receives Royal Assent so requests, the Secretary of State shall, before appointing a day for the coming into force of Section 1 of and Schedule 1 to this Act, prepare a scheme for the conduct of a referendum to be held within the area of any such district council.
(2) A referendum under subsection (1) above shall be for the purpose of determining whether the local government electors of the district are satisfied with the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act so far as they affect the boundaries of any local government area for which they are electors.
(3) Where it appears to the Secretary of State from the result of any referendum held under subsection (1) above that a majority of the electors of any district do not approve of any change in boundaries affecting that district which would result from the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act, he may by order made by statutory instrument make any modification to that Schedule which he considers will reflect the result of the referendum; and any such order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.'.

Amendment No. 14, in clause 65, page 51, line 2, leave out?1,?.

Amendment No. 15, in page 51, line 3, leave out?1,'.

Amendment No. 117, in schedule 1, page 52, line 17, column 2, leave out from 'Cardiff' to end of line 19.

Amendment No. 28, in page 53, line 27, column 2? leave out from 'Ogwr? to end of line 29.

Amendment No. 35, in page 53, line 34, column 1, leave out 'and Port Talbot'.

Amendment No. 36, in page 53, line 34, column 2, leave out 'and Port Talbot'.

Amendment No. 37, in page 53, line 35, leave out 'a Phort Talbot'.

Amendment No. 116, in page 54, line 1, at end insert:—




'Port Talbot
The district of Port Talbot


Port Talbot.'.

Amendment No. 100, in page 54, line 2, leave out 'Rhondda,' in both places where it occurs.

Amendment No. 38, in page 54, line 2, leave out 'Taff?.

Amendment No. 101, in page 54, line 3, leave out 'Rhondda,'.

Amendment No. 39, in page 54, line 3, leave out from Cynon' to end of line 5.

Amendment No. 40, in page 54, line 5, at end insert—


'Taff Ely
The district of Taff


Taf Eli'.
Ely.

Amendment No. 102, in page 54, line 6, at end insert—


'Rhondda
The district of Rhondda


Rhondda'.

Amendment No. 29, in page 54, line 9, column 2? leave out lines 9 to 11.

Dr. Marek: We spent many hours in Committee on the Bill where it was accepted that the issues that caused probably most division, not necessarily across parties, but from one hon. Member to another, were over what to do with communities on the boundaries of the new unitary authorities and whether any particular community or area should be in one of the new unitary authorities or in another. In particular, I remember many hours talking about Llanelly Hill. I am not exactly sure where it is, but it is somewhere on the border of the present borough of Torfaen, the district of Monmouth and the district of Brecon.

Mr. Llew Smith: Blaenau Gwent.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend corrects me. There was a case for including Llanelly Hill in any of those three new districts. Unfortunately, the Government decided that Llanelly Hill was to be in one of the those districts and, in spite of pleas by Labour and Conservative Members, there did not appear to be any movement in the position of the Minister or the Government in considering that, perhaps, Llanelly Hill could be part of another district or another unitary authority than the one to which the Government had allocated it.
Equally, one of the amendments that I tabled in Committee concerned the community of Llangollen. Certainly, a clear majority of people in Llangollen wished to be associated with, and be part of, Wrexham unitary authority. However, the Government decided that Llangollen was to be put in the Denbighshire authority and, in spite of cogent arguments, nothing seems to have changed the Government's mind.

Mr. Llew Smith: May I clarify one point? The Minister said that the Government would go away and think about the Llanelly community and consider the possibility of its being put into Monmouth or, indeed, into Blaenau Gwent. We proved that it was nonsense to keep it in Powys because we worked out that to attend two council meetings, it would take councillors approximately six days because it would require an overnight stay. The Ministers said that they would report back on that issue.

Dr. Marek: We shall have to wait and see exactly what the Ministers say, but I have not noticed that any appropriate amendment has been tabled to accede to the wishes of the Committee. It is true that the Minister said that representations could be made to a local government

boundary commission about Llangollen in due course, but I should have thought that it is incumbent on us to get it right now.
Other communities are affected. Llansantffraid-ym-Mochnant, for example, which is currently part of Clwyd, could be regarded as part of a future Powys, but it is not entirely clear. My point is a precise one. The elected representatives of the community council or the district cannot necessarily speak unequivocally for their electors and for their citizens without taking the voices of those citizens and those electors into account.
I will not dwell on new clause 11 which is grouped with new clause 2. However, new clause 11, which I will support in due course, allows for a referendum to be held in a council area. New clause 2 allows for a community council meeting to be held. If more than half the people covered by the community council agree that that community should not be part of the proposals as set out by the Government and that it should perhaps join a coterminous authority, the Secretary of State should take notice of that and introduce an appropriate statutory instrument. In that respect, new clause 2 would be very useful.
Why have the Government been so intransigent about some of the authorities? There have been arguments about whether Meirionnydd should be separate from Caernarfon, but all the arguments met intransigence from the Government. Even though the Government were outvoted on the question of the break up of Powys, I have heard nothing from the Government Front Bench about letting the people decide on the issue.
It is symptomatic of this Government that we have government by diktat. Huge majorities for 12 or 13 years lead to that. The situation has now changed and the Government have time to make amends. I have received much correspondence about Llangollen, which is not in my constituency, but in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), who hopes to catch your eye later today or tomorrow, Madam Speaker. However, as I stated in Committee, I have full permission and authorisation to make these comments on behalf of the people of Llangollen.
The important point is that people should be allowed to choose. Llangollen is a long way away and removed from the rest of Denbighshire. It is over two mountain passes and the road is often closed in winter. It is very likely that the headquarters of the Denbighshire authority will be at Rhyl which may be 40 or 50 miles away, while Wrexham is only nine miles away.
When I made those points in Committee, the Minister of State said:
It will not have escaped the attention of the Committee that occasionally we come across a town that has some real attachments but is anxious to extend its boundaries further. This is especially so in the case of Wrexham."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 April 1994; c. 155.]
I do not think that it is. The case stands or falls because of the wishes of the people of Llangollen, not because of the wishes of the people of Wrexham. Equally, the case in Llanelly Hill stands or falls because of the wishes of the people in Llanelly Hill, not because of the wishes of anyone else anywhere, even of people here. We should listen to what the people have to say.
Clearly, if more than half a community's citizens attend a community council meeting and they express a wish, that should be listened to, even by this Government.

Mr. Roger Evans: While I accept the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he accept that in the case of Llanelly Hill, there has indeed been a referendum which was in favour of Monmouthshire? It would appear from amendment No. 77 that the Government now recognise the full force of that referendum.

Hon. Members: What about elsewhere?

Dr. Marek: I welcome what the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) has said. If the Government have recognised it, that is excellent and I congratulate the Government on that. However, as many of my hon. Friends have said from a sedentary position, what about elsewhere?

Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that an opinion survey was carried out and the vast majority of people expressed a wish to be part of the Blaenau Gwent community as opposed to Monmouth? Does he also recognise that in the referendum referred to by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) it was no surprise that people voted to be part of Monmouth because there was no suggestion or policy at that particular time for a borough of Blaenau Gwent? We were still talking about the Heads of the Valleys authority.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend also makes the point that we now have firm proposals in front of us. The wisest course of events, when there was a dispute in those five or six areas in the Principality, would be for the issue to be decided after listening to the people. A referendum or a community meeting would be the most appropriate way of proceeding. On the Llangollen issue, there was also a referendum in which 58 per cent. voted in favour of joining Wrexham and only 42 per cent.—that is according to the Minister; the figures are rounded down—voted to stay with Denbighshire. That is not a good advertisement for good government. A clear majority favour joining Wrexham. However, I want to make progress as we are to have two very short debates.
I have had many telephone calls and letters of support for my stance in Committee on Llangollen being part of the new Wrexham unitary authority. It clearly makes sense because of geography, ties, shopping, the location of the hospital and other services, as well as bus routes. Above all, it makes sense because the people want it. If the Government listened to that they would be able to accept new clause 2.
I must say that I have had two letters of complaint, one from the chief executive of Glyndwr district council, Mr. Julian Parry. Quite honestly, he wrote a rather stupid letter pointing out so-called inaccuracies in what I said in Committee. I was told, for example, that I got the year wrong—it was 1992 instead of 1993—and that it is not yet absolutely clear that the new Denbighshire authority will have Rhyl as its centre. If it is not clear to him, I wonder why he is being paid so much per annum by the council tax payers of Glyndwr. He is the only one who has written to

me objecting to Llangollen joining Wrexham. The only other person who complained was the clerk of Llantysilio council.
Such people are not elected. I suspect that most community councillors in Llantysilio have never faced an election in their lives. They are quite happy to make decisions and write letters to the Secretary of State for Wales saying, "We believe this and we believe that," but they do not have the backing of the people; they are unrepresentative. Why do they not join me and organise a referendum now that we know all the facts? They should allow the people to decide the issue.
This matter is not confined to a party political argument. Perhaps the Conservative party is trying to gerrymander boundaries for electoral advantage, but I do not think that it is. In most cases, it has just got it wrong.
I have a letter—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) will comment on this matter—from Mr. David Unwin, the Conservative leader of Ogwr borough council. The Conservatives are up in arms over the fact that the Ewenny and St. Brides Major area is to be taken from Bridgend and given to the Vale of Glamorgan. Councillor David Unwin says:
Before it is too late, I urge you all to redouble your efforts on our behalf in an attempt to get a last minute change of heart by the Welsh Office Ministers over this issue.
He makes a
plea for some common sense and fair play for these communities who have no wish to be torn away from a council"—
Bridgend or Ogwr—
based centrally in nearby Bridgend.
It is not a party political issue; it cuts across parties. We would have worse government if we considered it to be a party political issue.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Marek: I shall certainly give way, but I am coming to the end of my remarks.

Mr. Evans: I have been listening carefully to the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument and I wonder whether he can help me with one part of the new clause. He will have gathered from the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) that sometimes, even when referendums are held, a decision is not acceptable if it does not happen to be the one with which one agrees. As we found during the debate on the Welsh devolution referendum, some people will never accept the result of a referendum. In the new clause, the hon. Gentleman is permitting every community in Wales to continue to vote on where they should be for local government purposes ad infinitum. There is no cut-off point. It would seem that local communities could therefore face endless referendums on the question of which local government area they should be in. Why has the hon. Gentleman not included a time limit in new clause 2?

4 pm

Dr. Marek: First, the hon. Gentleman has introduced a red herring with regard to devolution. We shall discuss that matter in the debate on the next group of amendments.
Secondly, let us talk about coterminous communities. Communities can only be coterminous communities. I freely admit that I did not have the assistance of


parliamentary data when I drafted the new clause. I could have included a limit of six months or something like that —it sounds like a sensible idea—but I did not think of it at the time. I believe in the good sense of community councils and the people of Wales and I do not foresee the type of scenario that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has drawn to the attention of the House.
There are five or six areas where communities feel deeply disgruntled that the Government have got it wrong and they should be in a different authority from the one that they are in but coterminous to it. New clause 2 is an attempt to put the matter right; new clause 11 is a better attempt to put it right. Certainly, as far as communities are concerned, it is sensible. The argument is not that if it goes against the way that I want it to go, I will not agree with it. My argument is that it is up to the people who live in these areas—Llanelly Hill, Llangollen and Llansantffraid -ym-Mochnant—to make the decision; it is not for me to say. In new clause 2, I am seeking to give them the chance, and I hope that the House will be able to agree to it.

Mr. Ron Davies: I shall seek to call a Division on new clause 11 at the appropriate time in our proceedings.
I am sure that the House will join me in wishing the Secretary of State for Wales a happy birthday. In the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee this morning, we discovered that the Secretary of State is enjoying his birthday today. I assure him that he receives the warmest wishes from all of us on this side of the House. When I say, "All of us," I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) would wish to join in our felicitations, given the exchange that took place between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Secretary of State this morning.
We offer the Secretary of State sincere many happy returns for today. I am sure that our wishes are more sincere than those of the Prime Minister, who probably looks at the record of the Secretary of State and hopes that he can get rid of him fairly quickly. It is fair to say that the Labour party's fondness for the Secretary of State is much greater than that of his colleagues in the Tory party because he has done much more for the Labour party in Wales than he has for the Tory party.
The Tory party now enjoys a record low in the polls in Wales. In the local elections earlier this year, it managed what the Prime Minister would probably call a significant achievement in winning one out of the 54 district council seats that were up for election. Last week in the European elections, the Tory party's share of the popular vote fell to less than 15 per cent. It suffered the indignity of coming third behind the Welsh nationalist party and, of course, it did not win one European seat in Wales.
The people of Wales can thank the Secretary of State for at least doing his part to ensure that Wales is represented by five excellent Members of the European Parliament, all of whom have substantial majorities. One of them enjoys the distinction of being the youngest MEP and another, Glenys Kinnock, enjoys the distinction—

Mr. Rod Richards: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I fail to see what the hon. Gentleman's contribution has to do with this debate. I appreciate the fact that this will be his last contribution in the House before the new leader of the Labour party

removes him and brings in the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), but I do not see what it has to do with new clause 11.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a point; I was wondering what it had to do with the new clause. Now that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has finished his preamble, perhaps he will move on to the new clause.

Mr. Davies: As usual, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) pre-empted me. I was about to refer directly to the fact that the Government suffered such a defeat because of the contempt in which they held the democratic process in Wales.
If new clause 11 is accepted, it will put at the heart of the Bill the opportunity for the people of Wales and the elected authorities to take control of their future. New clause 11 allows an existing district council to require a referendum by a simple resolution. A council could require the Secretary of State to convene a referendum on whether people were happy with the proposals in the Bill.
It is worth considering the fact that this reorganisation of local government was supposedly introduced by consent. When the Secretary of State's predecessor introduced his consultative document he talked about the need for consent; when the White Paper was introduced he mentioned the need for consent; and whenever the Secretary of State and his predecessors introduce any measure or statement in the House they talk about the need for consent. We can now see that consent is the very last thing that the Government have for this reorganisation of local government.
The Government also said that they wanted to use district councils as building blocks. Following our deliberations in Committee, it is now clear that that concept was put out of the window at a fairly early stage. New clause 11 would allow district councils to reassert themselves, to give a view and, we hope, require the Secretary of State to take a much more considered and meaningful view of the wishes of local government in Wales.
Any objective reading of our proceedings in Committee would persuade one to recognise that Opposition Members exposed widespread opposition to the proposals by not only local authorities and Members of Parliament but the public and many of our Welsh institutions, both private and public. In addition, we exposed the very deep resentment in some Welsh communities at the Government's deliberate and flagrant attempt at gerrymandering political boundaries for the sole purpose of influencing the results at the next general election to the advantage of the Conservative party.
We are also clear about the fact that communities such as Neath, Port Talbot, Rhondda, Cynon and Taff Ely were dissatisfied with the proposals. Many of my hon. Friends will want to refer to their local authorities. I shall not speak at length on that subject, but I must briefly mention the attempt at gerrymandering.
In Committee, there was much debate about Llanelly Hill. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) speculated that the Bill was not a local government reorganisation, but a Llanelly Hill reorganisation because we debated it so much. The Government were clearly exposed as using the people of Llanelly Hill as political pawns. New clause 11 would give the district


council within which they reside—the borough represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who is especially anxious to represent the views of those residents—the opportunity to require a proper referendum.
I accept the point raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) in an intervention. Of course, the referendum was unsatisfactory, because there was no prior consultation and the Secretary of State did not attempt to tell the people of Llanelly Hill that he had any intention of removing them from Blaenau Gwent and putting them in Powys or Monmouthshire. Now we have a compromise. In the face of the onslaught by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent when he made his case, the Government clearly could not sustain the argument for putting them in Powys, so the Government have conceded and put them in Monmouthshire. The important principle running through all the Opposition speeches is that there ought to be consistency in dealings with communities, which should have the opportunity to decide their future.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) moved the motion, he referred to Ogwr borough council, which was another subject that detained us in Committee. I, too, received a copy of the letter from Councillor David Unwin. I shall read one or two paragraphs from it, as it demonstrates the utter contempt with which the Government's attempt at gerrymandering has been viewed. He writes:
You will already be fully aware of the intense feelings of bitterness and anger that continue to exist within the three communities of St. Bride's Major, Ewenny and Wick in Mid Glamorgan against the current Government proposals to move them away from the new Bridgend Unitary Authority and into the Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Authority.
The local people resent this very much indeed!…I am currently Chairman of one of those councils, apart from my other role as Conservative Opposition Leader on Ogwr Borough Council … I have lived in my community for the past 25 years and I know only too well what the local people are thinking on this issue … My colleagues, Councillor Audrey Preston (Conservative) who represents St. Bride's Major and Wick … and also Councillor John Lewis, (Conservative) who represents Ewenny … both join with me in this plea".
We have the clearest possible demonstration of the welter of public opinion, expressed by elected representatives, the referendum held in Bridgend, Members of Parliament, letters and public consultation. All those organisations have roundly condemned the Government, yet the Government have a forlorn belief that somehow they will save the political skin of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) by shifting a couple of hundred votes across. It is a most contemptible attempt at a political fix and has been resented even by the people whose political interest is supposed to be represented by the attempt. It is disgraceful, and our attempt to introduce new clause 11 will give the people in that community an opportunity to ensure that they have fair play.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) has fought vigorously not only for the independence of Taff Ely but to ensure that there is no gerrymandering there. We can see what has happened at Pentyrch. I refer the Secretary of State and hon. Members to a report in the Pontypridd and Llantrisant Observer on 2 June. The report said:
A leading Taff Ely councillor has resigned from the Conservative party in protest at Government policy. Former mayor Jean Henderson, who has represented Pentyrch since 1979,

said her decision was prompted by plans to merge Taff Ely … 'I really think that the Government has behaved very insensitively,' she said … She also attacked plans to place Pentyrch under Cardiff s control. 'I really do think it's because the Government wants to add a few more Conservative voters to Cardiff,' she said.
That is the motivation behind the construction of these boundaries. It was exposed in Committee, has been resented by the public and has been attacked by the Government's political allies. New clause 11 would expose that attempt at gerrymandering and give the people of those communities the opportunity to right that wrong.
We had some debate in Committee on Powys and there was a lot of controversy about the wishes of the people of Powys and the three district councils of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire. The Government were defeated, of course. Much of the consideration in the early part of the debate was about Powys, but the Government were defeated on the proposal to have Powys as a unitary authority.
It is now clear from the amendment paper that the Government are determined to ignore the wishes of the Committee and of the three district councils and to reinsert that proposal for Powys in the Bill. I want to make it clear that I support the proposals that came from the Committee, and if the measure comes to a vote I shall vote in favour of it. My colleagues and I have consistently said that we will support the case of Montgomery. We did that in Committee and we also said that we would consistently support the case for Brecon and Radnor as independent authorities. We also applied that principle to the borough councils of Rhondda, Taff Ely, Llanelli, Port Talbot and Neath.
On every occasion, we challenged the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor to show the same consistency we had shown. If there was a disgraceful event in that Committee, it was when the hon. Gentleman, having seduced—I use the word advisedly—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) into supporting him, and knowing that he had the support of Labour Members, quite deliberately, at the very next sitting of the Committee, betrayed the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and refused to vote for that authority. That reflects poorly on the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor.
We stated clearly that the Labour party was in favour of the principle of consent. We wanted reorganisation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) did not take part in our proceedings in Committee. I shall not remind him of what happened to his predecessor, the Whip on that Committee, but I should be happy to discuss with him why that Whip left the Committee. I suggest that he have a word with his Minister, who I am sure will advise him to restrain himself. The Labour party wanted reorganisation to take place with the consent, and according to the wishes, of the people. That is what new clause 11 will achieve.
4.15 pm
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor failed to persuade the Government of the merits of his own case for an independent Brecon and Radnor. He failed to convince the majority of his colleagues to join him in defeating the Government. He failed to follow the principles that he had argued that we should follow in carving up Powys, because he did not follow those same principles when we voted on Rhondda and Port Talbot. He also failed to reciprocate the


vote of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy —not that there was any binding agreement between them. He failed to vote with those of us in the Committee who wanted to defeat the proposals for area committees, although he knew that, if we had defeated that proposal, the Government would have had to accept our proposal to dismember Powys unitary authority.
If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor finds that he is defeated tonight, as I am sure that he will be, he has no one to blame but himself. He is the architect of his own defeat. Had he shown any consistency or principle, he would have found that he and colleagues could force the Government to accept the logic of the case not only for Brecon and Radnor but for Montgomery and Meirionnydd. I hope that the electors of Brecon and Radnor will repay the hon. Member, come the next general election.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to devote so much of his speech to my personal position. He aspires to be Secretary of State for Wales. Earlier today, he had a meeting with the leaders of Montgomeryshire council, Breconshire council and Radnorshire council. He heard their pleas in relation to the position he has taken—a shabby position, if I may say so —in this debate. If he truly aspires to be a proper Secretary of State for Wales, will he say what his response was to those leaders?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman asked why I have spent so much time on him. The simple reason is that he has spent most of today briefing the press and has tried to pretend that his failure to defend his own interests in Brecon and Radnor has been caused by the Labour party. Somehow, 265 of us are supposed to gallop to the defence of the single vote from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. That is a most odd proposition.
It is true that I met representatives of those three district councils. I explained clearly that if there were any prospect of their securing the objective of separate unitary authorities for their councils, it lay in new clause 11. The Labour party is united on that new clause. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor knows that we have asked all our colleagues to join us in the Lobby to vote in favour of it. The new clause represents a matter of principle for the Labour party, although the hon. Gentleman may not recognise that.
I understand that representatives of the Liberal party and of Plaid Cymru, the nationalist party, will also join us in the Lobby. The Opposition parties will be united tonight. That unity demonstrates the way in which we have all been, if I may speak for all the Opposition parties, absolutely consistent in our treatment of local authorities, be they Labour authorities in south Wales, Liberal or Tory authorities in mid-Wales or Plaid Cymru or independent party authorities in north Wales. We have applied the same principle to all of them.
There is a realistic chance of new clause 11 being carried tonight. It will require the courage of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor in voting with us and his diligence in persuading some of his colleagues to join him. If he does that and new clause 11 is carried, it will be a decisive boost for better local government in Wales. It will give a democratic choice to people who live in Montgomery and Meirionnydd and to communities such as Port Talbot and Caerphilly. It will also be an object lesson

to the Government of the dangers that arise from their arrogant abuse of power. I hope that new clause 11 is carried.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I suspect that a more direct answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) would have been that it is not for Opposition parties to produce legislation that represents an acceptable consensus for the people of Wales. It is for the Government to produce legislation that is correct and represents a consensus acceptable to the population. The Government have failed to do that because the decision-making process that has led to the Bill in its present form, as it will probably be glossed by the amendments that are carried tonight, has been severely deficient.
Had the referendum proposals been in place, the Government would have known exactly what the public felt in areas where Ministers know that there is passionate feeling about the future of local government and the community of which that local government has been a symbol for many centuries, as in areas such as Montgomeryshire.
An advantage of a statutory referendum procedure as set out in new clause 11 is that it would be not the type of referendum that has been criticised in the "foreplay" to the Bill but a referendum conducted under objective rules made by the Government. The Government would have an opportunity to present their case to the people of the districts concerned and opposition to their proposals could also be voiced. A referendum would provide the Government with an informed decision by the population of districts such as Montgomeryshire and they could then decide, on the basis of that informed decision, whether it was right to proceed with their initial proposals.
It would be a much better form of decision making than we have had. May I compare the influence on decisions which a referendum can have with the decision-making process in relation to the Bill?

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Bill as it emerged from Committee contains a proposal for a Montgomeryshire authority, which he and I supported. That much is certain. The measure that he now says he intends to support proposes merely a consultative referendum. Is that to be preferred to what is currently in the Bill?

Mr. Carlile: Of course not. Had such a referendum been available, we would probably never have reached the proposals in the White Paper because the Government would have understood that they were wholly unacceptable. I do not want to repeat what has been said on many occasions, except for a few sentences. Within my constituency of Montgomeryshire, there is an overwhelming and passionate objection to the way in which the Government have ridden crudely roughshod over the views of my constituents.
The anger felt in Montgomeryshire is reflected not just in the district council. Hundreds of people have written to me and a fair number have written to the Secretary of State. Representations made to Ministers have been courteously received, particularly by the Minister of State. Overwhelming expressions of opinion made through an opinion poll and a petition have shown beyond doubt that the decision-making process adopted by the Government simply did not produce a result that was representative of


the public's views. If we had at least consultative referendums under a statutory procedure, how much more reliable the Government's basis for legislation would be.
Let us compare a referendum with what has happened. I should like to run through the chronology for a few moments.

Mr. Roger Evans: I am aware of the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument and I appreciate that that might apply to Llanelli Hill, Ewenny or Wick. As I understand the force of his argument, he wants a separate Montgomeryshire authority. Does he agree that the wording of new clause 11 is such that there can be a referendum on the provisions only
so far as they affect the boundaries of any local government area",
so there is no consolation or aim for his purpose in new clause 11, whatever other arguments he may have?

Mr. Carlile: I did not draft new clause 11, but my understanding of it is that it does cover the point that I seek to make, and it seems to me to have been carefully drafted to answer the hon. Gentleman's argument.
I shall turn to the chronology for a few moments. On 3 March 1992, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the then Secretary of State for Wales, made a statement in the House and issued a consultation paper. There had not been a referendum; had he held a referendum he would have found, unusually for his party, that he had virtually 100 per cent. support in my part of Wales at least. He said:
in the rural areas I want to see local government based on the traditional counties, such as Pembrokeshire, Montgomeryshire, Cardiganshire and Anglesey and, of course, we recognise the position of Meirionnyddshire and Carmarthenshire. I shall consult further on whether to extend that approach to separate authorities for Radnorshire and Brecknock."—[Official Report, 3 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 171.]
At that stage, therefore, the then Secretary of State was going to have, among others, a separate Montgomeryshire and a separate Meirionnyddshire. That was clearly stated.
That was confirmed a short time later in a written answer to the then Member for Delyn, Mr. Raffan, who, I believe, has departed these shores to a more prosperous life across the Atlantic. The Secretary of State was asked to estimate how much money would be saved by moving to unitary local government in Wales. He replied:
My proposal for a structure of 23 unitary authorities is estimated to be cost neutral; I am placing in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office copies of the report submitted to me by financial consultants."—[Official Report, 16 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 904.]
At that stage therefore, in spite of everything that has been said since about its being more expensive to have smaller unitary authorities, the then Secretary of State was saying that he was going to have 23 unitary authorities, which included Meirionnyddshire and Montgomeryshire. It was even accepted at that time that it was value for money. There was no need for a referendum at that stage because he would have had 100 per cent. support.
Then we reached the 1992 general election. There was a frisson of anxiety among the Liberal Democrats in Montgomeryshire as David Hunt, at that time not a Member of Parliament but merely a candidate although still Secretary of State for Wales, came to Llanfechain and made a promise—a pledge—that Montgomeryshire would be a unitary authority. There was no need for a referendum

because we were having a general election. The Secretary of State at the time would not have said it if he did not think that it would win him votes. That was one of the purposes in saying it, although it is my view that the then Secretary of State meant every word he said, and has always meant every word he said on that subject, and I acquit him of any duplicity on the issue.
Let us turn for a moment to the answer that was given in Committee in relation to the Llanfechain promise by the current Under-Secretary of State. He sought to present, on behalf of the—by then—former Secretary of State what appears to have been a plea in mitigation. I suspect that plea was not written by the former Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary said:
My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State has confirmed that his statements, which were made in a pre-election meeting, have been taken out of context. He did not pledge the Government to a Montgomeryshire unitary authority.
4.30 pm
At least if we had had a referendum, there would have been some record of the pledges and of their context. The context, of course, was a vote-winning meeting in a village called Llanfechain, and there was no possible contextual ambiguity about what the right hon. Member for Wirral, West said. The Under-Secretary continued:
Rather, he was looking forward to considering that on the basis of the proposals which he had already published from the Welsh Office or stated in the House. That was the position in 1992. There has been further consideration of the issues since then, especially those in the context of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. The Government have been convinced that Montgomeryshire was too small and that a Powys authority was in the best interests of local government and service delivery.
I put it to the Minister that what he said in Standing Committee was simply inaccurate and that the Secretary of State in 1992 meant every word he said. It is time that we heard from a Minister the real reasons why the Government have ratted—why they have gone weasel on their words. It is time that we heard the truth.
In revealing the real truth—I shall reveal it to the House in the next few moments—we shall see the difference between that truth and the way in which this matter would have been decided had there been a local referendum.
On 14 April 1992, a significant event took place which I am sure that the Secretary of State will recall. That was the day the current Secretary of State for Wales was appointed Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities at the Department of the Environment. He became the Minister who most closely influenced discussions and decision making in relation to local government reform in England. Of course, we all know that our elective dictatorship, in the form of the Secretary of State for Wales, is somewhat diluted by the fact that many of the shots are called not in Cardiff or in Gwydyr house but in lead Departments in England. This is where we begin to see the insidious effect of the lead Department in England, which, to the relevant extent, was thenceforth led by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
Then, in September 1992, the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance met. It was referred to by the Under-Secretary in Standing Committee on 19 April this year, when he said:
There has been further consideration of the issues since then, especially in the context of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 19 April 1994, c.105.]


In September 1992, the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance met and discussed the structures group work on service delivery. Following that meeting, Meirionnydd and Montgomery remained unitary authorities in the plans of Welsh Office Ministers.
It is worth contrasting this shabby decision-making process with some questions that I tabled which were "answered" by the Secretary of State earlier this year. On 10 May, I asked him:
on what date his predecessor sent the draft White Paper, 'Local Government in Wales—a Charter for the Future', to other members of the Cabinet seeking their agreement to its publication".
The right hon. Gentleman answered:
It is not the practice to give details of internal discussions on policy formulation."—[Official Report, 10 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 107.]
On 16 May, I asked on what date the Government decided that the White Paper on local government in Wales should not contain proposals for unitary authorities for Meirionnydd and Montgomeryshire. The right hon. Gentleman answered—on behalf of this open Government:
It is not the practice to give details of internal discussions on policy matters.—[Official Report, 16 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 351.]
One had to ask oneself, why, oh why, did this open Government, who believe in revealing the decision-making processes, decide not to tell when they changed their mind about whether there should be unitary Meirionnyddshire and Montgomeryshire?
I turn now to some interesting information which, hitherto, was not in the public domain. It has been revealed to me by a source who plainly is very strongly against the outrageous decision-making process which we have suffered and which I continue to contrast with a process that would have included a referendum.
My source has revealed matters which I challenge the Secretary of State to confirm or deny. It is true—but it would be nice to hear it confirmed honestly from the Government Front Bench—that, on 18 December 1992, the then Secretary of State sent a minute to the Prime Minister and to other Ministers about his proposals for the White Paper. In effect, it was the draft White Paper. What did it contain? Reference to a unitary Montgomeryshire and Meirionnyddshire. December 1992 was close to the wire so far as the White Paper was concerned.
On 13 January 1993, a private secretary in the Prime Minister's office, Mary Francis, wrote a letter to a private secretary at the Welsh Office, Judith Simpson. Hitherto, that letter has not been in the public domain. I shall quote from it, as a part of its contents has been revealed to me. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to check the authenticity of the letter. It reads:
Dear Judith"—
that part being in manuscript—
Local Government Re-organisation in Wales
The Prime Minister was grateful for your Secretary of State's minute of 18 December. He welcomes the broad outline of his proposals. He has, however, expressed concern about the following points and I would be grateful if you would clarify the position on them:
(i) the new authorities will cover populations ranging from 34,000 to 295,000.
Then the perfectly proper question is asked:
Is it feasible to expect such disparate areas to provide the same quality of service?
The point about that extract is that the reference to populations ranging from 34,000 to 295,000 makes it absolutely clear that, on that date–13 January 1993–the

Welsh Office was proposing, in its draft White Paper, a unitary Meirionnydd, a unitary Montgomery and, I believe, a unitary single Brecon and Radnor. If the Welsh Office had proposed a single Radnor, the range would have been smaller than 34,000 to 295,000. I am extremely grateful to whoever provided me with that information—I have no idea who it was—and for revealing to me what a dingy and vilely deceitful decision-making process, and I choose my words carefully, has been followed. I, and most of the people of Montgomeryshire, do not intend to pull any punches about what is happening to our county. We wish to contrast that process with what might have happened if we had had new clause 11 and a referendum procedure.
The White Paper was issued on 1 March 1993. At some point between 13 January—when the letter from which I quoted was written—and 1 March, Montgomeryshire and Meironnyddshire were chopped. What happened and who made it happen? It is plain that Welsh Office Ministers were not responsible, because they were in favour of a unitary Montgomeryshire and a unitary Meirionnyddshire. It is also plain that the proposals went to the Department of the Environment—and equally plain that they would have been considered by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, then Minister for Local Government and Planning.
What was the Minister worried about? It follows as night follows day: if the matter were being considered by a jury, that jury would scream "Guilty" at the right hon. Gentleman. I can see it all. The message sent back to the then Secretary of State for Wales was, 'We cannot have little authorities like this, or we shall end up with Rutlandshire, Huntingdonshire and such places as Clackmannanshire in Scotland." What have we now? We have Rutlandshire in England—the Government had to give way on that; we have Huntingdonshire in England, which was recommended because the Prime Minister represents the area; we have Clackmannanshire in Scotland. For some reason, however, the Welsh Office remains intransigent. One wonders why—for, by the time that the White Paper was produced, Montgomeryshire and Meirionnyddshire had gone.
Analysis of the statement made in the House by the then Secretary of State on 1 March 1993—the day of the White Paper's publication—makes it clear that the right hon. Gentleman was pretty embarrassed by what he had to present in the way of proposals for mid-Wales.
What happened next? On 27 May 1993, the right hon. Member for Wokingham was promoted to the post of Secretary of State for Wales. I have chosen my words carefully, and I am sorry if the Secretary of State took offence when I spoilt a moment of his birthday, as he seemed to suggest this morning. It is clear that by the time that the Secretary of State arrived at the Welsh Office, Montgomeryshire's and Meirionnyddshire's prospects of becoming unitary authorities were nil, because the right hon. Gentleman was actuated by bias against small unitary authorities.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw all those scandalous allegations, for which he has not a shred of evidence. If he wants to know what my views were when I was Minister for Local Government and Planning, he need only turn up my speech to the Conservative party conference in the autumn of 1992,


which is a matter of public record. It made my position very clear—and it was very different from that which he described.

Mr. Carlile: Then why did the Secretary of State not answer my questions on 10 May and 16 May, reported in Hansard at columns 107 and 351 respectively? What does he say about the letter from which I quoted, which has been leaked from some Department or other? What does he say about when the decision was changed? Will he tell us who changed it? If he is not the guilty party, he should let the people of mid-Wales—the people of Montgomeryshire and Meirionnyddshire—know who the guilty party is. It is disgraceful that the Government should hide behind such shabby subterfuges, especially as we now have Rutlandshire, Huntingdonshire and, I believe, six other English authorities that are smaller than Montgomeryshire, as well as Clackmannanshire.
It is noteworthy that, in his speech about the Bill in another place on 17 January—reported in column 364—Lord Rodger carefully avoided giving the Government's opinion. Every time he referred to Meirionnydd, in particular, he used the words "the Secretary of State" rather than "the Government"—"the Secretary of State" had justified the change in the decision. That was a very interesting and careful use of words by a distinguished and cautious lawyer, and I think that those words bear close examination.
I shall withdraw my earlier words, with one proviso: the Secretary of State must recognise that the decision-making process has been severely defective and that he has gone against the will of the people of central Wales and Meirionnyddshire, and must agree to unitary authorities for Montgomeryshire and Meirionnyddshire. I shall withdraw my words then, and not until then.
Until we have a better decision-making process, including statutory referendums, we shall be faced time and time again with similar disgraceful decisions by the elected dictatorship in the Welsh Office. Such decisions cause grave offence not only to Members of Parliament but to the very many members of the public whom we represent.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) again made the accusation that gerrymandering was behind the Government's policy in the Bill. The matter was addressed at length in Committee and I was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman raise it yet again—particularly as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) acknowledged that gerrymandering had probably not been the Government's objective.
I am obliged to bring a number of factors to the hon. Gentleman's attention once more. First, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) acknowledged in Committee, there is no obvious likelihood that the three villages of Wick, Ewenny and St Bride's Major will be added to the Vale of Glamorgan parliamentary constituency. The Vale of Glamorgan already has some 67,000 electors and is the largest constituency in Wales. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the average electorate of the 40 proposed new constituencies in Wales is about 55,500; adding a further 3,000–plus electors to the Vale of

Glamorgan would make it wildly oversized. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West clearly understood that in Committee and it is a shame that such a simple message has not got through to the hon. Member for Caerphilly.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West realised the logical effect of the requirements under which the boundary commission works. If those villages had come into the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority—in other words, if the Bill had been enacted by 1 June this year and the boundary commission had therefore based its recommendations on the revised county boundaries rather than the old ones—it is likely that, rather than those three communities being added to the Vale of Glamorgan constituency, the boundaries to both the west and the east of the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority would have been taken into account. That would have resulted in an electorate of 88,000. Surely the hon. Member for Caerphilly did not seriously think that there would be the remotest possibility of a constituency of that size being established.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West was probably right to observe, although I cannot see into the minds of the politically independent members of the boundary commission, that one way to deal with the matter would be to create two new parliamentary seats in the Vale of Glamorgan. Whether the Bill had been passed before 1 June or, as now seems likely, some time next month, the hon. Member for Caerphilly was wrong in his suggestion and I hope that he will have the generosity to withdraw his comments.
Today, I received a letter from Mr. Jones, a constituent of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), containing a copy of a letter that he sent to Birds Garden Centre, a well-known firm in the Vale of Glamorgan. He stated that, because he was so annoyed about the prospect of becoming an elector in the new unitary authority of the Vale of Glamorgan, he would withdraw his custom from Birds. That is the level at which the debate has been conducted in those three communities, which fear that somehow they could be prevented from continuing their normal association with Bridgend. Those three villages will remain just as proximate to Bridgend and, with or without the Bill, their residents will be just as capable of going shopping in Bridgend. The very fact that Mr. Jones was able to threaten to withdraw his trade from Birds shows the connection between those three villages and the rural vale.
People in those three villages live adjacent to villages in the existing Vale of Glamorgan and share common interests with them. The likelihood is that they will benefit from being in the Vale of Glamorgan because of the community of interest with the neighbouring rural communities.

Mr. Win Griffiths: When the hon. Gentleman put those arguments to a public meeting at Brynteg comprehensive school in Bridgend, how many of the audience of between 175 and 200 voted with him?

Mr. Sweeney: I can answer that only by placing my answer in the context of the meeting, which was chaired by Mr. David Unwin, a member of the public who has already been referred to in the debate and who is vehemently opposed to the Bill. He is a leading member of the Conservative organisation in the Bridgend constituency. I expected him to chair the meeting in an unbiased manner.


The hon. Gentleman and I were officially invited to the meeting to present our views. Mr. Unwin opened it by making a half-hour speech opposing the three villages coming into the Vale of Glamorgan. The hon. Member for Bridgend then spoke for a similar time before I could get a word in edgeways.
That is the background to the vote, which was taken at the end of the meeting. The chairman first asked who was from the Vale of Glamorgan and they were not allowed to cast any vote. The fact that people voted against coming into the Vale of Glamorgan should be seen in that context.

Mr. Win Griffiths: How many?

Mr. Sweeney: I do not know how many people voted, but I accept that the people at the meeting were opposed to coming into the Vale. That is hardly surprising, given the context in which the discussion took place and the dismissiveness of one member of the audience when I said that people were likely to experience lower levels of council tax in the Vale of Glamorgan than if they remained in Bridgend and that they would have a shared community of interest with the neighbouring villages. Those arguments were ignored.
I strongly object to the allegations made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly and I hope that I have nailed his points once and for all.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I shall make some general remarks and then I shall be specific as I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak.
We regretted the decision of the Secretary of State for Wales to break with tradition by insisting that the Committee did not consist solely of Welsh Members. For various reasons, many of us were unable to serve on the Committee that discussed the Bill and put our communities' case. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and others who could not sit on the Committee, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for the able way in which he put our case.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly that it was appalling that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) advanced principled arguments in support of the position in Powys but voted against that proposition and the logical argument on the south Wales valleys. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly was right to expose him today for his unprincipled stand.
We may talk about principles, but there is one thing that I fail to understand about the Bill. It is patchwork quilt and it is inconsistent. During discussions, the previous Secretary of State asked us to present our opinions and then said that the Glamorgan valleys would be divided on a reasonable basis. Within a year, that was completely overturned. Even at this late stage, no good reasons have been presented for the structure that the Secretary of State proposes in the Bill. It is an inconsistent sham and a patchwork without any underlying principle.
The one principle that the Minister put forward was that the Bill would set up unitary authorities. I have served on district and county councils. Having seen how they operate and the way in which they provide services, I believe that there should be two-tier local government.
Since the publication of the Bill, my views have been justified. Its basic proposition relates to unitary authorities, but the Secretary of State says that unitary authorities are too small to carry out certain functions and that they have

to form joint boards. Perhaps the only consistent argument that the Secretary of State advanced was that the Glamorgan valleys have a mini county council with a population of about 250,000 people. It will probably be the only authority in south Wales that will be able to deliver all services itself. Every other unitary authority will have a second, unelected tier. It would have been far better if the Secretary of State had retuned local government in Wales instead of setting up a false structure that has no relationship to an overall authority in Wales.
One problem for the Glamorgan valleys is that the Secretary of State has a "flat earth" mentality. He looks at the map and decides that Aberdare is only a couple of miles away from Maerdy, but fails to realise that there is a mountainous area between them. It is unbelievable that what we are debating will affect the delivery of intimate services. We shall be landed not with two-tier local government but with three-tier local government, and the area committees will mean even further divisions.
When I made my case to the Secretary of State, he said that Rhondda could be an area committee within the Glamorgan valleys system. That is completely inconsistent, especially from a person renowned for his logic and clear thinking. If that is an example of clear thinking in relation to the business of Wales, we are being very badly served. Rhondda communities are aggrieved, and rightly so. For almost as long as local government has existed in its present form, Rhondda has been a single authority. Even under the previous reorganisation, it was not linked with another authority. Its boundaries remained inviolate because it is a particular and peculiar unit in itself.
I am not arguing against my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)—I congratulate them on having succeeded in making their case. However, if the arguments are good enough for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Blaenau Gwent, they are good enough for Taff-Ely, Rhondda and Cynon Valley. The illogicality of the proposals has been exposed for all to see.
5 pm
We are not engaged in a semantic or statistical game; we are setting a pattern for local government for the next century. Those of us who have served at all levels of local government know that we are discussing the delivery of vital services on which people depend in order to live a decent life. Local government looks after people and has always done so, almost from their birth until the day that they die. That is what we are discussing; the Bill is not a statistical exercise and it is certainly not a semantic one. The Secretary of State has let down the people of Wales and he has especially let down the people of Rhondda and of the valley communities.

Mr. John Morris: The amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) aim to delete Port Talbot from the proposed Neath/Port Talbot part of Lliw unitary area. I also support new clause 11, which would provide self-determination for the many communities in Wales that are incensed by the present proposals. If that principle were accepted, it would go a long way to meet our needs.
I am grateful that our amendments have been selected because, despite the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath, he failed to persuade a majority of the Committee to support other amendments to the same effect


—we lost by 14 votes to 11. The reason was that the Government not only moved the goalposts but changed the venue. Although the Bill deals solely with Welsh matters, the Government packed the Committee with English Conservative Members who had no interest in the issues but merely carried out their obligation to support the Government, come what may. Like Pavlov's dogs, when the bell rang they voted no. Welsh Labour Members, who comprise the overwhelming majority of Welsh representatives, were denied places on that Committee, and that is the democratic deficit in decision-making on the structure of local government in Wales.
The result is clearly linked to the absence of a Welsh assembly, which is to be the subject of our next debate. Local government would have been the responsibility of that assembly, and those who would have known about such things—because they would have been democratically elected—would have been able properly to determine the needs of local government in Wales. Alas, there is no Welsh assembly, and decisions are therefore taken by a succession of English Secretaries of State. I sometimes wonder how much better the decision-making process is since the coming of the Welsh Office.
Given that we have had a series of English Secretaries of State, I should like to know who is really behind the proposals. It cannot be the Secretary of State because he would not know anything about the issues and had not heard of our problems before he got his little Cabinet place to represent Wales. Are junior Ministers responsible? I suspect that they would not have the interest, energy or zeal to cut across clearly defined local views, as has happened to my constituents. Is the political adviser to the Secretary of State responsible? He was my Conservative opponent at the previous election. He should certainly know better, although, when a delegation came to see him and the Secretary of State's predecessor, he excelled himself by sitting on the fence. If it is not the democratically elected people who are responsible, who is the grey figure in the Welsh Office who has made this determination?
I compare what is happening in Wales with what is happening in England. It is fascinating to learn that each household is to be consulted. There is certainly a divergence in the recommendations of the commission under Sir John Banham. We never had a commission, but I was one of those who advocated it. I was especially interested to read Sir John Banham's letter to The Times on 22 March. He wrote:
It will be most unwise to press ahead with changes to create unitary authorities unless there is clear local support for change and there are local champions for particular local situations.
The reasons adduced for the resurrection of Rutland are fascinating—it is argued that there is a strong sense of community felt by local residents. We want to know how Port Talbot and Neath differ; so far, the Secretary of State has failed the test.
I have not time today to tell the House, as I did on Second Reading, about the results of polls, inquiries and tests that were conducted locally in Port Talbot and Neath in order to ascertain local opinion. Sir John Banham makes it clear that it would be "most unwise" to proceed unless there were clear local champions for change. If the Secretary of State could tell me who the local champions for change in Port Talbot and Neath are, I should be delighted to hear him—in the face of the unanimity of

views of members of the public, the leaders of local government and the councils, of whatever hue or political persuasion. Do not we, like Rutland, have the strong sense of community that lies behind the Banham commission's determination?
The Secretary of State put the cat among the pigeons with his death-bed—or pre-shuffle—repentance to allow Merthyr to survive. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on their efforts, but I suppose that the Secretary of State wanted to show that he was a responsive and sensitive man and decided to give something away, just like old-fashioned colonial Governments did to pacify the natives.
How do we differ? In his letter to me on 28 April, the Secretary of State, with reference to our population, economic regeneration and efforts to attract new industry, could say only:
I am not convinced by the claim, in the document you sent me, that there is any justification for a population growth prediction for Port Talbot. Although the population figures for Merthyr and Port Talbot tell a fairly similar story during the 1980s, Merthyr's population had by the beginning of the 1990s recovered to the level of the early 1980s. This cannot be said of Port Talbot.
What is the position? The drop in population has been arrested and is now being reversed, but the House should know what caused the drop in population in the 1980s. It was a Tory Government, under such luminaries as Keith Joseph—now Lord Joseph—Lord Walker, and Lord Howe, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, who decimated our steel industry and we lost 7,500 jobs in a matter of years. In response, they provided only a totally inadequate amount of alternative jobs. That is where the responsibility lies. The young people walked with their feet or, as Lord Tebbit would have it, they got on their bikes to find work.
Today, there is a change. With first-class communications and despite the fact that the Government have taken away our development status, there is an increase in population and 655 more dwellings have been constructed in Port Talbot in the past six years, compared with 22 in the previous six years. The Registrar-General has been proved wrong in his forecast, because he estimated that the population in 1990 would be 48,800 whereas, in fact, at the last census in 1991, it was 51,000. The Secretary of State has failed to take into account what is happening. With all due regard to Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent—I have done a little in my time to help and support regeneration in those areas—I do not think that it is understood that, given our situation and our communications, the potential is much greater in any area contiguous to the sea than in an area which does not have those communications and advantages.
In the years ahead, when the economy recovers—it has not recovered yet for us—we shall see a dramatic upturn in the population. The period of severe difficulties in the early 1980s is history. The availability of good industrial sites, the improved attractiveness of the borough as a place in which to live and, especially, the provision of quality housing, is changing the whole situation. It is for the Secretary of State to justify the case for change. The onus is on him. Sir John Banham makes it clear in that letter from The Times, from which I quoted, that the responsibility is on those who propose a change. I fear that the blinkered response of the Government, their failure to take account of strongly held local views and the way in


which they have ignored completely the change that is taking place in our population and our hopes and prospects for the future will result in grave disappointment tonight in Neath and in Port Talbot over what the Government are doing to those two great boroughs.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I rise to support the two new clauses as one who served for a couple of years on what was one of the old county boroughs in Wales—Merthyr. I am delighted to see that back as a unit in its own right. The lessons that are relevant to Merthyr are relevant elsewhere as well. Community matters very much in Wales and we want to see units of government that respond as closely as possible to natural communities.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) mentioned, had we had an elected Welsh parliament or an assembly which drew up a scheme for local government, I have no doubt that there would have been a much greater sensitivity towards the need to identify with communities, because the people in such an assembly would have grown from those communities themselves.
That brings us to the basic question—new clause 11, in referring to a referendum, touches on it—of the legitimacy of the proposals before us. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to the elected dictatorship in the Welsh Office. Of course, the Secretary of State is not even elected from within the community of Wales, the future of which we are discussing.
If hon. Members agree that, as I would certainly claim, our authority to speak in this place or, indeed, to speak in any forum, be it a local authority or a Parliament, comes from the people, the legitimacy of these changes and the rights of the people who are so much affected by the changes to the local government structure of a community within which those services will be delivered must grow from the people whom the changes serve.
The new structures of local government must identify with the communities that they serve and must have the support of the people who live in them. That is the basic difference between Conservative Members and some Opposition Members. Across the Opposition parties, we believe that our sovereignty and legitimacy grow from the people upwards and not from institutions down. Therefore, especially in drawing up structures of government, there must be an identification with the wishes of people.
5.15 pm
Clearly, on that basis, and especially if the attempt to do away with the change agreed in Committee, which rescued Montgomeryshire, is successful and the unit of Powys comes back into existence, the proposals before us are a model of local government which falls between two stools. We shall have unitary local government authorities that are too large to be truly local and too small, in some ways, to be strategic authorities.
The whole point of the exercise was to try to get a more efficient system of government. I listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) saying that he believed in a two-tier system of local government. I understand his reasons and I understand the lack of the legitimacy of joint authorities taking decisions, which is one stage removed from democracy, but there is a strong argument for having unitary authorities, provided that they are the right size and are drawn up with the right borders. As I saw when I served in Merthyr, there was an ability to bring together housing

and social services, for example, where so many of the problems have a commonality. However, for that system to work, the units must be regarded as local by the population.
Clearly, in the case of Montgomeryshire and Meirionnydd, there is a great groundswell of feeling that the proposed unit is not a unit of local government in the sense in which the people of those two areas regard local government. I suspect that the same thing may well be true in Brecon and Radnor and I recognise that it is true in historic communities such as the Rhondda and, indeed, in areas such as Taff Ely. If people in those areas of Montgomery, Meirionnydd and the Rhondda feel so strongly about their identity and if the proposed unit is the unit of government, the provisions of the new clause should be made available so that those people may have the final word on the structure of local government, or at least on the boundaries of the local government authorities within which they will operate.
Indeed, if the people of Dwyfor or Arfon or any other part of Wales feel that way, such mechanisms should be made available. To achieve any authenticity to the changes that the Secretary of State is putting forward, given the widespread and deeply held feelings that have been expressed, he would be well advised to take up the new clause. If he is not happy with the wording, there is an opportunity to change it in another place, but if we do not put the new clause into the Bill at this stage, that opportunity will be lost.
May I move from the generality of the size of units to the implications of new clause 2, which raises the question of the identification of communities in the new unitary authorities in which they have been placed? There is no doubt that, in many parts of Gwynedd, people in the communities there feel that they should be in an adjacent area.
I have received representations from people in places such as Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr who identify with the old Caernarfonshire and the Arfon area. I know that parts of the Conwy valley have expressed similar sentiments. At different times, people in parts of Edeyrnion have expressed similar feelings. Those feelings may or may not be reflected by the relevant community councils. That point was made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). He said that the matter should be one for a community meeting rather than simply for a community council so that the grassroots feeling about the proposal could be ascertained.
I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that there are communities, particularly at the southern end of the Aberconwy and Colwyn area, which are very rural. They are Welsh-speaking communities and they identify more closely with the old Caernarfonshire and the type of authority that is likely to come about there than with the seaside towns of Colwyn Bay and Llandudno. I am not making a value judgment about the two areas, but the people I am talking about identify with a different community. They would like to find a mechanism whereby that identity could be recognised.
The Government's response will be that those points may be considered afterwards by boundary commissioners. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the proposals will become tablets of stone. Only in very remote circumstances would drastic changes be made. Flexibility should be built into the Bill now.
New clauses 2 and 11 provide the Government with the opportunity to be flexible. If the Government refuse to


accept the new clauses, it will be impossible to have a structure that is more finely tuned in terms of the new units of unitary government and the borders that allow communities to identify with a particular unitary authority.
For those reasons, my colleagues and I will support the new clauses. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to find the sensitivity to the wishes of the people of Wales, locally in their communities, that the people certainly deserve.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Just a week ago, I undertook a successful foray into north Wales on a beautiful summer's day. I felt certain that we were going to win that particular seat. At the time, I was travelling through the Mid and West Wales constituency which, I knew from earlier election activity, we were going to win.
As I travelled along, my mood changed from delight to elation as I heard the Secretary of State for Wales speaking on the radio. With regard to the European elections, he said:
I am happy to accept the verdict of the electorate. I take them seriously.
I was so amazed by that that I stopped the car to take his words down before I forgot them. I wanted to ensure that I could quote them to him exactly this afternoon.
On that basis, I speak with some confidence today that the Secretary of State, even at this 1 1 th hour and 59th minute, will be prepared to change his mind about the communities of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick in respect of which I have tabled amendments.
What is the will of those three communities? They have expressed their will in five ways. Ogwr borough council conducted a postal ballot in which 80 per cent. of the people said that they wanted to stay with Bridgend in a turnout of nearly 60 per cent. Some 84 per cent. of the businesses that responded stated that they wanted to stay with Bridgend.
Ogwr and Vale of Glamorgan borough councils or-ganised meetings in each of the communities as a result of which, 93.3 per cent. of those who attended wanted to stay in Bridgend, with only 2.5 per cent. opting for the Vale. The Electoral Reform Society organised a ballot. In Ewenny, 89.7 per cent. voted to stay with Bridgend on a turnout of almost 80 per cent. In St. Bride's Major, 87.8 per cent. voted to stay with Bridgend on a 75 per cent. turnout and in Wick, 81.2 per cent. voted to stay with Bridgend on a 75 per cent. turnout.
Between 175 and 200 people attended the famous—or infamous—public meeting at which the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) put the case for moving into the Vale of Glamorgan. Although the hon. Gentleman spoke at length in reply to my intervention, he failed to mention the fact that only one person from those three communities at that meeting supported the hon. Gentleman's view. The rest clearly wanted to stay with Bridgend.

Mr. Sweeney: As I made clear in my speech to the House, some members of the public at the meeting were not allowed to vote because they came from the Vale of Glamorgan and not from the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).

Mr. Griffiths: The three communities should decide their own fate. Even if the people from the Vale of

Glamorgan had voted, I hazard a guess that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan would have had difficulty achieving double figures in support of his case.
In the wake of public opinion, it is also interesting to contrast two elections that took place in those communities. The first took place in 1991 before the proposals came to light and the other took place in 1993 after they came to light.
In the borough council elections in 1991, the Labour candidate managed to poll 187 votes while the top Tory received 502 votes. That was before the proposals saw the light of day. In the county council elections in the same area, the Labour candidate received 1,082 votes while the Conservative candidate received 935 votes. That Conservative candidate also supported the case that those three communities should be part of the Bridgend unitary authority.

Mr. Sweeney: Is not it fair to say that there are many different reasons why people vote in elections? If the hon. Gentleman wants to be strictly logical, based on the information that he has provided, it would appear that the Conservative candidate was defeated in the county council elections because that person supported Labour policy on the matter rather than the Government's policy.

Mr. Griffiths: The Labour candidate wanted the communities to remain part of Bridgend. For the first time ever, the seat was won by the Labour party despite the spirited efforts of the Conservative candidate to make it clear that she was totally opposed to her Government's policy and that she would like the areas to remain with Bridgend. In that context, one could argue that 100 per cent. of the voters were opposed to the Government's policy in that area.
The two borough councillors representing the area and living in it are totally opposed to the Government's proposals. My hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) mentioned the letter from Councillor David Unwin, the leader of the Conservative group on Ogwr borough council and chairman of one of the community councils involved in the fight. He made clear his total opposition to what the Government are trying to do.
Other people have been involved. Reference has been made to Mr. Trevor Jones, who, as part of his campaign, is not even prepared to spend money in the Vale of Glamorgan any more because he is so disgusted with what the Government are doing. In a letter to the Western Mail of 13 June, he says:
As a result, my wife and I, and our five children of voting age, will not consider voting Conservative again until the policy is reversed and the people of Wick, St Brides Major and Ewenny are told they are to remain with Bridgend.
The persons who have influenced our decisions are … Secretary of State for Wales
together with the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan
and other Conservative members of the Standing Committee of the Local Government (Wales) Bill now before Parliament.
5.30 pm
In addition, the three communities publicly made clear their opposition in the Western Mail. Very interestingly, a most distinguished former president and chairman of the Bridgend Conservative Association, Mr. Forbes Hayes, also wrote to the Western Mail, saying:
I write as a life-time resident of the Bridgend area, where I and my family have developed many interests, including substantial industries, and as a strong Conservative, having been


constituency chairman.
He went on to say that he totally opposes the proposals. On top of that, he rang me in the House of Commons yesterday and said, "Make sure that you tell the House that I will not maintain my membership of the Conservative party, that I will give no more money to the Conservative party, and that I will encourage as many people as I can to do exactly the same unless the proposals are reversed."
It is quite clear that the Government are virtually friendless in those three communities. Of course, the Government have tried to argue why that should be. In the House of Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, speaking for the Opposition, clearly showed how the Government were disingenuous and even deceitful in the notes on clauses. In respect of the communities of Cynwyd and Llandrillo, the Government said:
These amendments reflect the weight of representations from the areas concerned".
On Delyn, the notes stated:
The decision to amend the White Paper proposals to include in Flintshire the whole of Delyn reflects the overwhelming weight of local opinion".
On Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf, the notes stated:
The communities of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf have been added to Mid-Wales since the White Paper was published in accordance with the strongly expressed wishes of local residents".
In some of those changes, the Government did not even have the evidence of a referendum; they had only letters from community councils. In the case of my three communities, they had other forms of evidence, yet in their notes on clauses they chose only to say:
largely rural and agricultural, have more in common with the Vale of Glamorgan authority than with the town of Bridgend and with the industrialised valleys to its north".
The Government should have added, "Even though the overwhelming weight of opinion is to remain with Bridgend, we nevertheless ignore it." That is what the Government are doing.
The Government have argued in letters to me and to my constituents and in the House of Lords that the Vale of Glamorgan is more used to dealing with small rural communities. The truth is that in Ogwr there are six community council areas with smaller populations than that of St. Bride's Major, the biggest of the three communities. In the Vale of Glamorgan, there is only one community with a smaller population than that of St. Bride's Major. The Government also told me in a written answer that they did not know the size of those communities, even though they were writing to tell people that it was because of the preponderance of small communities in the Vale of Glamorgan that they were making the change. The reverse was true.
On the issue of rurality, according to designations for planning, more of the Vale of Glamorgan–20 per cent. —is regarded as a built-up area, whereas the built-up area in Ogwr is just 15.4 per cent. People working in agriculture account for 1 per cent. in Ogwr and just over 1 per cent. in the Vale of Glamorgan. About 20 councillors in Ogwr represent rural areas as opposed to industrial areas, and about 20 councillors represent rural areas in the Vale of Glamorgan. On rurality, there is very little to choose between the two areas.
The Government were forced into arguing about the snow plough from the Vale of Glamorgan going half a mile along the road to clear snow in the community of Wick in Mid Glamorgan. The truth is that that has never happened. Mid Glamorgan always clears snow from roads in Mid

Glamorgan in the borough of Ogwr. The only reason that the snow plough from the Vale of Glamorgan goes into Ogwr is in order to find a place to turn around to go back into the Vale of Glamorgan.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry also said in the other place that some people in those three communities
sometimes advertise their houses as being in the Vale"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1737.]
—not all, not many but just some—and that that was another good reason to make the change. He also said, rather amazingly, that the communities of St. Bride's Major and Wick were nearer to the community of Colwinston than they were to the community of Bridgend. He could just as easily have said that the community of Colwinston was nearer to Wick and St. Bride's Major than it was to Barry. We are seeing a mirror image of that debate, with the Government totally ignoring the will of the people.
Historically—since 1093—those three communities have been a part of the Bridgend area, and the Government are trying to wrest it from its historical place. As for the geography, those three communities are far closer to Bridgend than to Barry. For some people, it is only a 10–minute walk to the centre of Bridgend. If they tried to walk to Barry, it would take them a day and a half. There are many reasons why the change should be made.
On top of that, there are fears about schools and about the health service. Although to some extent the market could mitigate against some effects, there are problems in both areas.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be true to his words and will be happy to accept the verdict of the electorate and take it seriously by saying today that the three communities will remain with the Bridgend unitary authority.

Dr. Kim Howells: Like my constituents and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I, too, can see no logic in the Secretary of State's unwillingness to grant unitary status to Taff Ely. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I would point out that when we see a snow plough it is usually because it is lost.
The Secretary of State's decision smacks of inconsistency in terms of the comparison of the size of the districts that are proposed, their populations, the nature and quality of the services offered by district authorities and the history of existing local government structures. I have been among the least enthusiastic of right hon. and hon. Members to see the demise of our county authorities. I do not relish seeing the wider duties which their excellent staff and work forces now fulfil in many areas of public life, from the provision of special needs education to strategic communications, farmed out to much smaller, less powerful authorities and all kinds of dubious proposed joint committees and assorted quangos.
Last Saturday, I attended a fete at the estimable Pentyrch primary and junior school. I spoke to parents of disabled children who have been integrated at no little cost into the mainstream of pupils at that school. Those parents are extremely worried about the implications for their children's education of the proposals for local government reorganisation. Indeed, many people in that village and its neighbour, Gwaelod y Garth, are worried about being delivered lock, stock and barrel from Taff Ely and from Mid Glamorgan into Cardiff. Taff Ely is worried about


losing Pentyrch and Gwaelod y Garth. We need high-quality, high-value housing located in those communities if we are to attract the managers and executives who are now required by an advanced economy. We need the beautiful rural countryside and the drama of the limestone gorge of the lower Taff valley. They are key assets to our borough. The people of those communities have always been part of the valleys, industrially and culturally; they have never been part of the flat lands of Greater Cardiff.
At least the name Taff has been retained in the proposed title of the new authority, Rhondda, Cynon, Taff. RCT —it sounds like a breakaway from the railwaymen's union. But the Ely component of Taff Ely has disappeared completely—as though the communities of Tonyrefail, Coedely, Llantrisant and Pontyclun have been beamed up at the request of some Vulcan warlord. It has taken 20 years to integrate the old districts of the Taff valley, such as the town of Pontypridd, with those of the Ely valley. Now that Taff Ely thinks of itself as a viable administrative entity, it is about to be subsumed into this proposed triple alliance.
The citizens in my constituency view the Secretary of State's proposals with mistrust. They want much greater assurances about the future integrity and security of their health, education and welfare services before they accept the proposals as a blueprint for the sort of future to which they aspire.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall be brief. I merely endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said when he argued the case for Port Talbot and what my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) will say when he argues the case for Neath. I was able to put the case for Llanelli. As Lord Howe pointed out in another place, Llanelli, Port Talbot and Neath are the same kind of communities. All of them still have an industrial base. About 30 per cent. of the people of Llanelli work in what is described as productive industry; I imagine that the figures for Port Talbot and Neath are about the same.
My right hon. and learned Friend argued the case for Port Talbot in the House; he was not able to argue the case in Committee because he was not a member. When I argued the case for Llanelli, I believe that, together with those on the Labour Front Bench, I won the argument, but we lost the vote by one. The arguments that have been made in the House today are the same as those that were made in Committee.
Neath and Port Talbot are put together as two industrialised communities. The concern in Llanelli is that, because it is an industrialised community, it will be subsumed in a greater Carmarthenshire, which is a large agricultural and rural area. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with rural areas, but their problems are quite different, as we discussed in Committee.
As the Minister knows well, there is real concern that projects such as the regeneration of south Llanelli and the redevelopment of the Llanelli town centre will be hindered and put back as a result of the reorganisation. I ask the Secretary of State again at this late stage to reconsider the case for Llanelli—just as my hon. Friend the Member for Neath will argue for Neath and just as my right hon. and

learned Friend the Member for Aberavon argued for his constituency—because of the industrial character of the Llanelli constituency.

Mr. Peter Hain: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) put with great eloquence the case for keeping Port Talbot as a separate institution. The amendments that he has tabled, and which I support, would achieve that objective and leave Neath standing free, together with upper Lliw. That is a much more logical alternative to the spatchcock proposal put forward by the Secretary of State.
I shall make several brief points. First, there is real anger in Neath at the Government's failure to listen to local wishes—they have been expressed unanimously, even by local Conservatives—as regards the retention of Neath as a separate borough. That unanimous opinion, which has been measured in opinion polls and surveys—and, indeed, in the submissions made to the Secretary of State on this matter—has been completely ignored and trampled on.
There is real anger, too, about the hypocrisy of English Tories who will vote tonight completely to ignore the wishes of communities in Wales while they are objecting to the Government's proposals for similar local government reform in England. Four members of the Committee—the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley)—are on record as criticising or flatly opposing the Government's proposals for their own communities in England, but they are completely ignoring the wishes of local people in Wales.
Another individual whose action has been greeted with anger in Neath is the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who asked for and received the support of the Labour Members on the Committee. He supports the retention of autonomy in the communities within Powys in a separately identifiable sense but refuses to support that, same principle with regard to Neath, Port Talbot, Rhondda, Taff and the other communities that have been identified. The logic of the principle applies equally to those communities.
The Secretary of State completely failed to mention the fact that Neath is second only to Cardiff as the longest-standing and most historic borough in Wales. That has been ignored. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for the way in which he, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), achieved separate authorities for those areas. There is no logical reason why, if those areas have been granted separate status as unitary authorities, Neath could not have been as well.
5.45 pm
There is a serious point underlying all these boundary questions. Local authorities are vital mechanisms for acquiring and reproducing democratic legitimacy for local people in their structures of government. Last week, the miserable turnout in the European Union elections showed how little legitimacy those institutions have among the people of this country and, indeed, the whole of western Europe. If we have artificial communities which have no serious common interests—in the case of Neath and Port Talbot, there is a lot of traditional and historic rivalry—and which are forced together, we cease to have the legitimacy


on which democracy is built. These communities are proud; that is why their democracies thrive locally. The Secretary of State has completely failed to recognise that in his proposals.

Mr. Llew Smith: I shall be brief because the question of Llanelli dominated the debate in Committee. Indeed, some hon. Members have suggested that the title of the Bill should be changed from the Local Government (Wales) Bill to the Local Government (Llanelli Community) Bill.
The original proposal was that the Llanelli community should be part of Powys. That was crazy because, as I emphasised in Committee, that would mean that local councillors attending meetings during the week would be away from home for six days. Even the Government recognised that that was not on. As a result of the campaign conducted by the borough council, the community council and the local people, the Government backed down.
The local people are now asking for a say in determining their destiny in response to the Government's decision that Llanelli community should be part of the borough of Monmouth. What I am doing is expressing the feelings of the local community. If I were speaking in terms of party political advantage, I would be supporting the Government's proposals, because, if the Llanelli community went into the borough of Monmouth, both the borough of Monmouth and the Monmouth constituency would be Labour controlled after the next local and general elections. While we obviously welcome that, we are still willing to put aside party advantage and express the wishes of the people.
The people of Llanelli wish to be part of Blaenau Gwent because of the history and traditions of the community. They are mainly employed in the coal and steel industries, as are the people in the borough of Blaenau Gwent. The people of Llanelli wish to be part of the borough of Blaenau Gwent because housing, environmental health and financial services are only three miles away from their little community. They wish to be part of the borough of Blaenau Gwent because Blaenau Gwent has objective 2 status and previously had development area status. Obviously, they want to be part of that. Indeed, not long ago the Government recognised that they should have been part of it.
We are saying that we have to create local government boundaries in such a way that local people can relate to the decision makers and feel they have some control over them. If the Llanelli community becomes part of Blaenau Gwent, people will feel that they have some say in their destiny. If the Government insist that it should go to Monmouth, they will no longer get that feeling: they will become divorced from local government decision making and will be dejected as a result.

Mr. Roger Evans: I am driven to rise to my feel as a result of the speech made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). It may have escaped the notice of some hon. Members that I represent Llanelly Hill in Parliament. I presented a petition signed by 1,900 out of nearly 3,000 electors expressing a preference for being in Monmouthshire. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the fact that Blaenau Gwent lost the referendum in Llanelly Hill and that Monmouthshire won it. I know that there can be all sorts of explanations when opinion polls or referendums do not meet the purposes for which they were devised—

Mr. Llew Smith: rose—

Mr. Evans: I shall not give way because I am going to sit down. The Government should be congratulated on recognising the majority sentiments in Llanelly Hill.

Mr. Redwood: After three years of consulting, weeks in Committee and full debates in the House and the other place, Labour has come back with a half-baked proposal that would throw Welsh local government back into chaos and uncertainty. The House would not know how things might end up. Staff of local authorities would have to suffer further delays before knowing the final shape of Welsh local government. They would be far from happy should Labour succeed in winning the vote on the new clause and we oppose it strongly on that and other grounds.
The hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Neath (Mr. Hain), the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and those representing Taff Ely and Port Talbot talked of their wishes for their communities to have separate councils. I understand their passion and their advocacy, but they must understand that a balance has to be struck between community identity, which is very strong in many of the communities of Wales—communities far smaller than those represented tonight in this debate—and cost and service delivery issues, which are also important.
Had we come before the House with proposals for many more councils, Opposition Members would, I am sure, have made great play of the extra costs and staff involved and the problems of delivering certain services. As it was, they made enough play of some of those.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Before the Secretary of State goes further, can he explain the logic of dividing Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent and putting together Rhondda, Cynon and Taff Ely?

Mr. Redwood: In each case, where one should draw the line is a difficult judgment. I decided that the separate history and former status of Merthyr, which is different from that of the other boroughs that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned, were sufficient reason, given its size and the other considerations brought to my attention. That was the judgment that I put before the House and that Ministers put in Committee.
A judgment has to be made in each case. Wherever we draw the line, people will say that we have drawn it in the wrong place. They will say, "Why can't I have my local community, with a separate unitary council?" or "Why have you so many local councils? Won't it be too expensive? Wouldn't it be better to have bigger ones to deliver the services?" We have to find that balance, which is what we are recommending to the House.
Clause 6 of the Bill and section 55 of the Local Government Act 1972 contain provisions for the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales to undertake an initial review of the electoral arrangements of all the new unitary authorities as soon as possible after the first elections and of those boundaries where anomalies are thought to remain.
I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that the boundary commission is an objective body, which can take a dispassionate view of any outstanding issues. We believe that we have the structure right and we are recommending it to the House.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State saying that the boundary commission could consider the three communities that he seems determined to take out of Bridgend and decide to put them back?

Mr. Redwood: The boundary commission can come to its own conclusions within its terms of reference. Those terms enable it to review boundaries where it thinks that it needs to suggest an alternative proposal.
I want to clear up some of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He was right to say that there had been representations to the Welsh Office for an independent Montgomery. He omitted to mention the fact that similar representations had been made in favour of a maintained Powys. He made no mention of the shire committee proposals which I introduced to balance community identity with service delivery.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is wrong in his general allegations. He knows that they are wrong and he should withdraw them. If he is interested in my views at the time that I was Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, he should look at the public record. I have managed to procure a copy of my main speech on the subject in October 1992—just before the time when he purports to represent my views—at a party conference. It was a clear statement of my views. I said that the purpose of the review in England was not to carve the country up into a certain number of administrative units of a given size, whatever peoples' feelings and wishes. I went on to say:
In 1973 they decided the county of Rutland should be abolished because it was too small, but then they invented the county of the Isle of Wight, which was smaller than their model.
I specifically said:
Somerset, Herefordshire, Rutland, Huntingdonshire, the Ridings of Yorkshire, if you want your past to become your future say so and your wish can be granted.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) would confirm that I was always very sympathetic to the case that he was making.

Mr. Alex Carlile: First, does the Secretary of State recognise that his shire committee proposals, as they appear in the amendments tonight, contain no financial guarantees for shire committees? Why is that so?
On his second point, if the right hon. Gentleman claims that he was, and remains, in favour of small unitary authorities such as Rutland and Huntingdonshire, why is he not in favour of small unitary authorities such as Montgomeryshire or Meirionnyddshire? Where is the logic in what he is saying? Let him tell the House how the Government changed their mind between early January 1993 and 1 March 1993. What were the reasons for that change of mind and who influenced it?

Mr. Redwood: The reasons for the new approach were set out by the former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt). The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here long enough to know that no Government—Labour, Liberal or Conservative—ever make available internal minutes or correspondence between colleagues when they are reaching judgments that they then come to the House to defend.
I am not going to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman who intervened on what occasion in the debate. I can give him a strong promise and guarantee that I had my views,

which I expressed at the time in public, on English local government reform. His allegations are untrue and he should withdraw them. I hope that, on reflection, he will do so. He did not produce a shred of evidence to support the contention that I intervened and caused a change of heart. Will he think again about the allegation? Does he seriously suggest that a Minister of State in an English Department can instruct a Secretary of State for Wales without recourse to the Cabinet and collective discussion? He is living in cloud cuckoo land in suggesting that.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I told the Secretary of State that I would be perfectly prepared to withdraw my allegation if we were told who was responsible for the change of mind. Does he deny that pressure was put on the Welsh Office by Ministers who were not Welsh Office Ministers to change its mind?

Mr. Redwood: I do not intend to reproduce debates in the Government at that time. The decision was made by the Government. The then Secretary of State for Wales was happy with it. The proposals were his, he presented and defended them, and I have carried them on, with some modifications of which the hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware. He knows that those modifications included certain boundary changes, to reflect the wishes of communities and the consultation evidence that we received and the introduction of more local identity through shire committees and—the biggest change of all —of an independent Merthyr.

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I do not have time to give way. We must wrap up this debate so that we can get on to the other important business, which I know that Opposition Members want to discuss.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in his place because he talked a great deal about the importance of democracy, and I entirely agree. I was interested, therefore, to receive a letter from Russell Goodway, the leader of South Glamorgan county council, urging me to support the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I find Mr. Goodway's view of democracy, as reported in the South Wales Echo, quite astonishing. The South Glamorgan leader is reported to have said:
The Tories promised cuts in public spending, so it seems to me that people who voted for those cuts should get them. That's democratic in my view.
I phoned Mr. Goodway to tell him that I was going to mention this, and he claimed that he was misreported. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will make it clear in the next debate that when he stands for democracy, he stands strongly behind the idea that anyone who is elected has to be fair in the interests of all constituents, and that includes being fair to Conservative wards in Labour-controlled councils. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will dissociate himself from Mr. Goodway's view.

6 pm

Mr. Ron Davies: I assure the Secretary of State that I would deplore any proposition that any local authority, or Government for that matter, seeks to use the financial resources at its disposal to reward people of its own persuasion.
I shall put the record straight, however. The precise words used by Russell Goodway were:


It is very difficult to understand those people who vote for a Government that is committed to reducing the resources necessary to deliver services then expecting councils to have money, in other words when they vote they have been expecting cuts in services.
The quotes attributed to him were quite inaccurate.

Mr. Redwood: I am glad to hear that particular interpretation of Mr. Goodway's remarks. None the less, the remarks are a little less than edifying from one who tries to represent a large and important area of Wales. It is small step from what the hon. Gentleman reports to the remarks which the newspaper claims were made. [Interruption.] I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I told the House that Mr. Goodway claimed that he was misreported, and there I shall leave the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am sure that my hon. Friends will be interested in that statement, and in the reformulation of it which has clarified the record.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to criticise a person in such an appalling way and, when corrected, not even to have the grace to withdraw?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The Secretary of State is responsible for his own speech.

Mr. Redwood: I contacted Mr. Goodway, who knew I was making the remarks. I did say that he thought that he had been misreported.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) dealt effectively with the points of the hon. Member for Bridgend on the communities. He made out a very good case for the three communities being part of the Vale, and he clearly disproved the idea that he was motivated by parliamentary electoral considerations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) also made a good point about the community of Llanelly Hill. Some Opposition Members have not quite grasped the importance of the measure which we have tabled tonight.
The proposal shows that we have listened in a large number of places to community representations. We have come to a good judgment on how Wales can go forward to a strong system of unitary authorities. I hope that, once the debates are over, Opposition Members will encourage their party colleagues to make a great success of this new system of local government for Wales. It is full of opportunity, and I want it to succeed.

Dr. Marek: We have had a thorough, and thoroughly unsatisfactory, debate. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that, once all the arguments are behind us, we should try to make a success of it. He is right in that. We must try to make a success of whatever system of local government we have.
It is right to remind the House that the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Montgomery and Meirionnydd have been disregarded and thrown away. The balance is right according to the Secretary of State, but it is completely wrong according to the people of Montgomery and Meirionnydd.

Mr. Rogers: And of Rhondda.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. For the people of Llangollen, the result was clear in the referendum.
The balance is wrong. It might be right for the Conservative party, but it is not right for the people of Wales. We must wait for the Local Government Boundary

Commission to deal with the communities. No doubt it will put the matters right, because it is not motivated by political survival.
We must also wait for another Government, and a change of Government, before the serious matters are put right. It is my hope and conviction that we will not have to wait long. The Conservative party is now in third place in Wales and it is likely to stay there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fourth place."] My hon. Friends say that it is in fourth place and, after what we have had to put up with and listen to this afternoon, it will stay there.
At the next election, we will have a Labour Government and all the Opposition parties will be united on the matter. We shall put the map of Wales right and listen to the people, whereas the Tory Government are concerned only with colonial administration from London.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 11

REFERENDUM ON BOUNDARIES (No. 2)

'(1) If, by resolution, the council of any district existing at the time this Act receives Royal Assent so requests, the Secretary of State shall, before appointing a day for the coming into force of Section 1 of and Schedule 1 to this Act, prepare a scheme for the conduct of a referendum to be held within the area of any such district council.

(2) A referendum under subsection (1) above shall be for the purpose of determining whether the local government electors of the district are satisfied with the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act so far as they affect the boundaries of any local government area for which they are electors.

(3) Where it appears to the Secretary of State from the result of any referendum held under subsection (1) above that a majority of the electors of any district do not approve of any change in boundaries affecting that district which would result from the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act, he may by order made by statutory instrument make any modification to that Schedule which he considers will reflect the result of the referendum; and any such order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 277.

Division No. 260]
[6.05 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Keith


Adams, Mrs Irene
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ainger, Nick
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Allen, Graham
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alton, David
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Stephen


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Caborn, Richard


Armstrong, Hilary
Callaghan, Jim


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Austin-Walker, John
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Harry
Cann, Jamie


Barron, Kevin
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Battle, John
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bayley, Hugh
Church, Judith


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Stuart
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Berry, Roger
Coffey, Ann


Betts, Clive
Cohen, Harry


Blair, Tony
Connarty, Michael


Blunkett, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boyes, Roland
Corbett, Robin






Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Corston, Ms Jean
Livingstone, Ken


Cousins, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dafis, Cynog
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davidson, Ian
McAllion, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, Calum


Dewar, Donald
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dobson, Frank
Maclennan, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H.
McMaster, Gordon


Dowd, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacShane, Denis


Eagle, Ms Angela
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Enright, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Etherington, Bill
Mallon, Seamus


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mandelson, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fisher, Mark
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Flynn, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maxton, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Meacher, Michael


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fraser, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gapes, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Garrett, John
Miller, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morgan, Rhodri


Godsiff, Roger
Morley, Elliot


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grocott, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hall, Mike
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hanson, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Hara, Edward


Harvey, Nick
Olner, William


Heppell, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hinchliffe, David
Patchett, Terry


Hodge, Margaret
Pendry, Tom


Hoey, Kate
Pike, Peter L.


Hood, Jimmy
Pope, Greg


Hoon, Geoffrey
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hutton, John
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Reid, Dr John


Jamieson, David
Rendel, David


Janner, Greville
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Khabra, Piara S.
Short, Clare


Kilfoyle, Peter
Simpson, Alan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)





Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walley, Joan


Snape, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Soley, Clive
Wareing, Robert N


Spearing, Nigel
Watson, Mike


Spellar, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Wilson, Brian


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Jack
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tipping, Paddy



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Mr. Alan Meale.


Wallace, James





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Den


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dunn, Bob


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eggar, Tim


Bates, Michael
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evennett, David


Body, Sir Richard
Faber, David


Booth, Hartley
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fishburn, Dudley


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowis, John
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forth, Eric


Brandreth, Gyles
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fry, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butler, Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Butterfill, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carrington, Matthew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carttiss, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Cash, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gorst, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Coe, Sebastian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Congdon, David
Grylls, Sir Michael


Conway, Derek
Hague, William


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Hannam, Sir John


Couchman, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cran, James
Harris, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Haselhurst, Alan


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hawksley, Warren


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hayes, Jerry






Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sproat, Iain


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stephen, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marlow, Tony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mates, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Trend, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Merchant, Piers
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walden, George


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Moate, Sir Roger
Waller, Gary


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moss, Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Needham, Richard
Watts, John


Nelson, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Neubert, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wilkinson, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Willetts, David


Norris, Steve
Wilshire, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wolfson, Mark





Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 1

FUNCTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALITY AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

'—(1) There shall be established on 1st April 1996 a council for the principality of Wales, to be known as the Welsh Assembly ("The Assembly").
(2) The Assembly shall perform strategic functions for the principality in so far as they are relevant to the local government of Wales.
(3) The Assembly may do anything it considers necessary to—

(a) facilitate the co-ordination of administration of local government in Wales, and
(b) promote greater co-operation between the Welsh local authorities and public agencies and voluntary organisations in Wales.

(4) The Assembly shall represent the interests and views of Welsh local authorities collectively in the relevant institutions of the European Union.
(5) The Secretary of State shall consult the Assembly on all matters affecting local government and local and regional interests in Wales.
(6) The Assembly shall have power to appoint such officers as it thinks necessary for the proper discharge of its functions, on such reasonable terms and conditions, including terms as to remuneration, as it thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Morgan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
'(aa) the principality of Wales; and'.

Mr. Morgan: It is a pleasure to move the new clause, with its tiny consequential amendment. I hope that the debate will be fairly brief but extremely vigorous on this important topic of how a Welsh assembly fits into the Bill.
The new clause seeks to develop British democracy. Britain is a unitary state but with interesting ragged edges such as Wales, Scotland and, since the 1920s, Northern Ireland. The new clause recognises the special needs of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Although only a few Members are in the Chamber, there is quite a buzz.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for your protection of my still, small voice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that we shall have the necessary co-operation from all those who are genuinely interested in this interesting debate.
The problem is that, since the 1880s in the case of the Scottish Office and the 1960s in the case of the Welsh Office, there has been administrative devolution. The 1980s saw further administrative devolution, with powers frequently taken away from local government and transferred to unelected quangos. People who have been defeated in a democratic contest by the electorate of Wales are often able to re-enter politics in an anti-democratic way by being made chairmen and chairwomen of quangos that take over the functions of local government.Thus the continuously moving target of devolution and democratic


change in the past 16 years has, unfortunately, been largely undemocratic. Many previously democratically controlled functions have been quango-ised. In urban regeneration, housing and education, quangos have been set up to carry out functions that were previously carried out by democratic local government.
The people of Wales do not like that and regard it as creating a democratic deficit. They do not trust the Government or Secretaries of State who—with the exception of the then right hon. Member for Pembroke, now Lord Crickhowell—do not come from Wales. We have had four Secretaries of State since 1979, two of whom —including the present one—were closely connected with the Rothschild empire, and two of whom were closely connected with Lloyd's of London. Their experiences are millions of light years away from those of the average person who votes in Welsh elections. As a result, the Welsh electorate kicks back against the Government. It is fair to say that in last week's elections the Tories reaped the whirlwind for their contempt of the Welsh people. The Welsh people are looking for a bastion to protect them against the continual loss of democratic control over the functions of local government. The new clause attempts to solve that problem and to put right the democratic deficit that has built up in Wales since 1979.
Last week, the Tories reaped the whirlwind in the same way as the Canadian rugby team did by making various solicitous remarks about the Welsh and saying that in-breeding catches up with people in the end. The Welsh coach had merely to pin that remark on the Welsh changing-room wall for the team emerge on to the field like whirling dervishes and take Canada apart up front. We all saw the result of that. The last 15 years of Tory Government have been like pinning a notice on the changing room wall saying what the Tories thought of Wales and showing the contempt with which Wales is treated in a democratic sense. The result of the European elections last week was similar to the drubbing given to the Canadian rugby team. If Wales is treated with contempt, it will kick back.
The new clause attempts to interpret the views of the people of Wales, who want an assembly so that they cannot be mucked about by a Tory Government, as they have been over the past 15 years. An assembly would enable the functions of quangos, which have taken over so many local government functions, to be controlled democratically. A voice would be given to the people of Wales, enabling the functions of local government to be co-ordinated. In the context of the Bill, an assembly would alter how we decide all the issues that we discussed under new clauses 2 and 11.
Strategic functions could be carried out by an all-Wales tier, which would determine how big a local authority must be to deliver viable local services and provide a local identification. In the last debate, the Secretary of State was keen to refer to the figure of 20 local authorities. An all-Wales tier would mean that a different number could be chosen. The system would not have to be undemocratic, as it is now. That could be done without worsening the problem of the democratic deficit.
The entire proceedings through which the Bill has passed so far have been anti-democratic. The Standing Committee was packed with non-Welsh Members, the transfer of powers incorporated and hon. Members such as

the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), the great expert on gerrymandering from Westminster, put on the Committee to act as a silent voter without participating in the proceedings. The Government's attempt at gerrymandering failed because they could not get the Bill through in time.
All those measures have worsened the democratic deficit from which Wales suffers. The people of Wales are looking to this House today to express, on behalf of all hon. Members—not just those on the Committee—what Wales needs most: local government reform, but with a strategic overview of matters in Wales. That should be provided not solely by the Welsh Office or all-Wales quangos funded by the Welsh Office. The Bill will make that problem worse as a result of the way in which the Secretary of State has handled it. In many ways, what has happened in Wales in the past 15 years has been much worse than what has happened in Westminster. Westminster tried to export Labour voters to adjoining boroughs, but in Wales when the Government lose local authority elections to Opposition parties—overwhelmingly Labour, but not always—they tend to say, "If people are going to keep voting Labour, we shall transfer functions out of local government, and thus out of the purview of the Bill, and put them under the control of appointed, patronage-based quangos directly funded by the Welsh Office." How do those quangos know what the people of Wales think?
If the Government were to accept the new clause, they would show that, despite the contempt that they have shown for Welsh people's views over the past 15 years, and the widening of the chasm between the political views of the Welsh people, shown in the European elections last week when the Conservatives dropped to third place—there is evidence that it will widen further at the next general election—they were willing to make a gesture to the Welsh people. Wales needs a defence mechanism against the depredations of successive Tory Governments. Given Tory Governments' lack of sympathy for the people of Wales and the countervailing lack of sympathy among the Welsh people for the Tory Governments who have ruled over them, the Government could say, "Let's establish a Welsh Assembly and make this country's constitution more workable."
A Welsh Assembly would act as a bit of oil in the wheels of the inevitable crunching that is now occurring between the Government and the people of Wales, who gave just 14.5 per cent. of their votes to the Tory party last week. One can see the dangers to this country's constitution when the Tories are faced with almost a wipe-out in Wales. That is why I am hoping against hope that we shall hear from the Secretary of State tonight that he is willing to listen to the views of the people of Wales. I hope that he will not regard himself as the equivalent, as Secretary of State, of all those Tory party candidates who are often sent to the valleys after doing a couple of years in Oxford and a couple of years as Guards officers and want to come to this place with a safe Tory seat but are told, "You have to try for a seat in the valleys first." We do not want the Secretary of State to regard the apprenticeship in Wales as something that he has to do for a couple of years before he is given a Cabinet job back in mainstream English politics.
Above all, the new clause would provide us with a guarantee. We do not want any more discrimination between, for example, the treatment of Rutland and Huntingdon in England and that of Montgomery, Port


Talbot, Llanelli, the Rhondda and all the other authorities in Wales. That is the problem—that contempt for the people of Wales—to which new clause 1 would provide the solution.

Mr. Roger Evans: I rise briefly because I was trying to intervene but missed my opportunity. From the passionate speech that we have just heard, one might have thought that the new clause was a proposal for a Welsh Parliament with real powers. It is typical—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Hear, Hear.

Mr. Evans: I hear a sedentary objection from the nationalist Bench, because what the new clause proposes is extraordinarily different from the type of proposition that I suspect that the occupants of the nationalist Bench would want. This body is a super Welsh local authority at its most. It has no legislative or law-making powers. It has no taxation-raising powers. It has the most limited powers of expenditure. It is an attempt to create a quango-control body, but, at most, it is a modest and irrelevant extra layer which would achieve nothing and would simply disappoint those people who want a Welsh Parliament, to which my electors in Monmouthshire are firmly opposed.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: One of the numerous joys of serving on a Standing Committee is that during the debates or discussions one's mind either becomes clarified or more muddled or one at least starts to gain an impression of the way in which a piece of legislation will ultimately work. I will tell the Secretary of State, who did not share the joy of serving on the Standing Committee, of the impression that was left on me about certain aspects of the Bill and the way in which it relates to the new clause that we propose.
I gained the clear impression, as we went through the debate—there was not especially a party divide about it —that there genuinely were areas of local government administration and policy making which would not fit easily into a unitary authority structure. One thinks of strategic issues, especially in regard to mental health, child abuse, certain aspects of social services, strategic roads and planning aspects, which had been primarily a county function and which—I do not complain because I am pleased with some aspects of the pattern of unitary authorities that has emerged in relation to my area—unitary authorities of considerably varying sizes will have to try to deliver.
As the debates progressed through the various clauses, I do not know whether other hon. Members—or the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), who was the most assiduous attender of the Committee and listened patiently in many cases to hours and hours of debate—were left with the impression that the sectors of trading standards, fire, services, roads, strategic planning and some social services functions, especially in relation to mental health and child abuse and so on, which had been county responsibilities, would not necessarily fit properly and easily into the pattern of unitary authority structure that we had proposed. As a result, it emerged that we would have a patchwork of possible alternative solutions to what was a county function—lead authorities, joint boards of one type or another—to deliver some of those services which do not fit into the pattern of unitary authorities of varying size; a sort of limbo-land democracy.
I do not like—I know that the Opposition have tended to recommend it frequently—the form of delegated democracy that occurs when it is decided that county or district councils will serve on this organisation or that body, to try to give an impression of a democratic body. I find that that type of delegated democracy—limbo-land democracy—does not work because in a sense people do not recognise the delegated member to be directly responsible to the community, as he or she would be if serving on the local authority or, as I would suggest, sitting in a Welsh assembly.
If one believes in democracy, democracy does not come cheap. No one is saying that it does. Democracy is more expensive. It is more expensive in administration. Consider the sheer amount of time that Whitehall spends trying to manage this place. I know that from my ministerial experience. This morning, I was watching the Foreign Secretary in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. He had a large pile of files with him. He had spent, rightly and understandably, an enormous amount of time trying to anticipate every conceivable question that we might ask. So democracy does not come cheap, even in the present system.
We should not argue about the cost, therefore, but about whether an organisation is a valid instrument of democracy. I suggest that, as a result of all the changes that are occurring, some aspects of policy will not fit easily into the unitary authority pattern. Eventually, policy making and major decisions about resources will gradually drift back into the Welsh Office. The Welsh Office will need to shape those policies and will gradually take over and assume the strategic policy thinking in many of those sectors that lay with the county, but will now lie with either joint boards or lead authorities. I know that it will not necessarily be deliberately intended, but I think that the process will gradually return to the Welsh Office.
As a result, I think that the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State will become more powerful as a result of the Bill even than hitherto. When one considers the way in which, I am sorry to say, this place handles vital, fantastic issues of Welsh concern to us, we ought honestly to be appalled with ourselves and with the system. There were many quality contributions to this morning's debate, but what a truncated debate it was on an issue of profound concern to so many members of our community.
I was reading the preface to the Secretary of State's preface to the public expenditure White Paper produced by his Department—it was better presented than ever before and more interesting than ever before—stating powerfully just what a huge sum of money he has in his gift and responsibility. How much does this place analyse and scrutinise expenditure of that type? In spite of the invaluable work by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, how much time do we spend on what is now one of the biggest collective spending Departments, with a fantastic range of functions, right across the board—quite rightly so? We all support it. We set it up and it has been built on and developed since. How much time and energy do we put into it?
I shall give an illustration to make the point. How much time and energy will the House spend on something that will shape the education of all our children in the years to come? How many debates will we have about the national curriculum proposals that are being published? Let us take as an example the document that I hold in my hand, the


proposals for the national syllabus for history. They will eventually be put before us in a series of orders. We may possibly have a prayer, at some unearthly hour in the day or night, to discuss one or more of those.
The documents containing the national curriculum proposals will shape the education that is provided in our schools for a decade and more. In that document—the one that I was especially interested in—it is proposed, as I understand it, that no young person or child will learn about Welsh history after 1918. Are we to nod such proposals through? That is what is in the document. History stops in 1918. One thinks of the events of the 1930s, the 1940s and the 1950s, which shaped the critical social economic consciousness of our society, and shaped politics and social attitudes. Yet as I read that document, history after 1918 will not be taught in our schools. How much time and energy will be spent in the House debating matters of such profound concern as that? I have picked up only one of those syllabuses; there are others.
I know that the proposals will be subject to consultation and that we can make written representations. I have already done so in this case to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, those issues should be debated openly. That is the very meat and drink of democratic political decision making.
I support unitary authorities, but I fear that some aspects of policy making which are dealt with at county level now will drift up to the Welsh Office, thereby enhancing its powers and those of the Secretary of State. I know that the Government will deny that, but, having heard the debate in Committee, I know that it is what will happen. And when it happens, hon. Members will find that we will not give it the necessary scrutiny. We will not find time in this place to discuss all the changes. This House is becoming more and more impatient, given all the European stuff that it has to consider.
I have two final points for the Secretary of State. Whatever happened to the grand debate, promised at Cardiff in a speech on 8 March 1993, to be initiated by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor? What has become of the revamping of the Government's counter-proposals to a Welsh democratic assembly? What happened to their promise to revamp the handling of Welsh affairs in this place? There has not been a single proposal since March 1993—although I do not know whether the usual channels have been working behind the scenes. I note that some of those involved—in Plaid Cymru—shake their heads. What has happened to the famous Hunt revamping proposal, which the current incumbent may now wish to deny knowledge of?
Anyone who knows his British history will recall that the Conservative party has been a great national party. It is, after all, the party of Peel and Disraeli, of Baldwin and Macmillan and occasionally—he was in and out—of Churchill. After the results of the past weekend, that great national party has become a regional and peculiarly English party. I never thought in my lifetime to see the Conservative party—even in my constituency it had hitherto always managed to get out its core vote of 25 or 30 per cent.—reduced to 14 per cent. of the vote.
That being so, the Secretary of State should ask himself what moral legitimacy he exercises when he rejects our demands for democratic accountability for the decisions

that he, among others, will make, and for the powers he exercises that will be enhanced by this Bill. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to reply favourably this evening, but I hope that he will begin to think again about his legitimacy when saying no to the demands from Wales.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Apart from the sniping aimed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) at my colleagues just now, I agreed entirely with everything he said. I spent six weeks in the Standing Committee, where we discussed scrutiny, and I am adamant that the hon. Gentleman is correct. There is not enough time to deal with Welsh legislation in the set-up that we have here.
We have notes on clauses comprising three sentences although they deal with highly complex strings of clauses. We should not be expected to nod such clauses through, but I am afraid that that is precisely what happened on some days in the Committee.
The fact that we have to compress a debate about the democratic process in Wales and the need for an accountable all-Wales forum into the few minutes that we have today serves to underline the need for a strengthened and better democratic procedure for the government of Wales. Plaid Cymru does not shy away from the fact that we need a full Welsh Parliament with legislative and tax-raising powers. Some Conservatives believe that we try to conceal that, but it is the very reason for our being. We do not deny it, and it is why we are here.
The new clause, however, represents a great step forward in the democratisation of the unfortunate process of government in Wales. A similar amendment was debated at length in another place and was defeated by only eight votes. Their lordships are not known for their radicalism, but even they realise the need for urgent and real change. Here we have the vehicle for such change.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: My hon. Friend referred to the debate in another place. Did he find it as remarkable as I did that many of the participants in that debate originally opposed any moves towards devolution and decentralisation in Wales, but that they have been convinced by 15 years of Conservative Government?

Mr. Llwyd: Not surprisingly, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend—I was coming to that very point. Earlier, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) said that there had been a referendum in 1979 so the matter had been decided once and for all. But many things have changed in the past 15 years. We have been subjected to a Government whom 85 per cent. of the electorate of Wales rejected at the last election and whom a far higher percentage rejected a few days ago.
6.45 pm
I think that it was Harold Wilson who said that a week is a long time in politics. Certainly, 16 years of Tory misrule is a hellish long time. Were there to be a referendum today on this subject, there would be no doubt at all of the answer, as I am sure all Opposition Members will agree.
It is also preposterous to suggest that because there was a referendum in 1979 there should never be one again. That is an abomination. If it is true, why do we have votes on capital punishment so regularly? The issue has been


decided time and again, yet I have no doubt that there will be future votes on it. Why should not the same apply to the subject of the government of Wales?
We in Wales need an all-Wales forum, for several reasons. We are a proud people. We want to play our true part in the development of the new European scene. Other historical regions, such as Catalonia, are enjoying a great measure of success. It is lucky that the Minister of State has just re-entered the Chamber; he has been to Catalonia on trade visits and knows that it is doing very well. The Catalans have a large measure of autonomy within the Spanish system. They can deal with their affairs on a European level: we cannot. We have to have our thoughts filtered through the enervating process which is Westminster. The corollary is that funding intended for Wales which comes through this enervating channel used to be stopped at source, until that was put right some time ago. The additionality argument has shown the great disincentives for Wales under the present system.
I think that Opposition Members to a man will agree that the current set-up is over-centralised to a ridiculous degree. In this Parliament, we have witnessed a tendency that runs contrary to everything happening in mainland Europe. I have referred to it before and I shall do so briefly again. The Governor of Hong Kong recently said:
We have to re-examine our understanding of the division of political power in the UK. I think we have become absurdly over-centralised. It was a great mistake of the 1980s, and I speak as one of those who made the mistake.
So even the Governor of Hong Kong, who is not averse to the political thinking of the Government, has come to the conclusion that some real democratic constitutional change is called for.
The Secretary of State for Wales exercises his functions in Wales as a governor-general. I do not expect him to agree with that, but he is responsible for housing, education, health, transport, the economy, agriculture and so on—

Mr. John Morris: And the honours system.

Mr. Llwyd: Yes, not that that worries me unduly. I believe that it is because of the concentration of powers and functions without true accountability that the people of Wales view the Welsh Office with such odium. All political parties in Wales agree on the principle of unitary authorities, and there is no argument about that on the Opposition Benches. I believe that the Government also agree. But I have to say that the lack of accountability of the 90 or so quangos currently operating in Wales worries many people. That might have been a factor in the Government's poor showing in 1992 and last week. Above all, local government reform must carry with it the consent of the people of Wales. The so-called reforms in the Bill do not have that consent.
Quite apart from the boundary arguments, which will probably be restated later this evening, and which are very important, there are many flaws in the legislation and we have not had adequate opportunity to scrutinise them properly. During the passage of the Bill, questions were asked and assurances were given, but the arguments have advanced very little. We are still, incredibly, very much in the dark as to the kind of animal that the Bill is and what will eventually come of it. Surely that is not the way to deal with legislation in a so-called democratic forum such as the House of Commons. We should know exactly where we

are going and that what we are doing carries with it the will and consent of the people. That clearly is not the case in this instance.
If we do not have an all-Wales body accountable for strategic planning and also to scrutinise the quangos, I believe that we are making a grave mistake. We have a good opportunity now to deal with a major reform, which would democratise matters, and here is the vehicle to do it. But we hear consistently the tired argument that, "In 1979, the people of Wales said no, so you are not having it." Meanwhile, we see quangos spending billions of Welsh taxpayers' money without any true accountability. That really is a worrying feature of any democracy.
In Wales at the moment there is the scandalous situation that a quango seems to be a safe haven for every failed Conservative, or any Conservative who thinks that he or she is on the way up. By all accounts, those safe havens are free from any real scrutiny and that makes them untenable and unacceptable. The democratic deficit in Wales is a wide abyss which is ever-widening, and that concerns all Opposition Members. We must bring some form of scrutiny into force quickly. I know that there has been some tinkering at the edges in mid-Wales. I am not sure whether the Government's view on that is correct, but there is—I hope—some scrutiny of the current quangos.
It is a sad fact that £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money is distributed by 1,400 people who serve on those bodies—200 more people than there will be councillors under the proposed set-up in the Bill. The Government have an opportunity of addressing that democratic deficit. It is real, not perceived. I referred earlier to the way in which polls in Wales have gone against the Conservative party. I believe that it is because those quangos are looked upon with such disdain that the Conservative party is so unpopular. If it were not for the fact that every person in Wales has to spend money to keep them going it would be a laughable matter, but it is not.
Some 85 per cent. of the people of Wales voted in favour of parties that have in their manifestos some form of devolution, be it a full Parliament, which Plaid Cymru wants, an assembly, which the Labour party wants, or the assembly that is proposed by the Liberal Democrats. Consensus is a vital component of the Bill. It will affect each and every person in Wales, and therefore we need that consensus.
In another place, the opportunity was grasped by many in the debate and in the Lobbies. I believe that if the purpose of the Bill is to ensure good local government in Wales, the new clause and the consequential amendment should be carried. I therefore fully support the new clause and the amendment.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Part of the malaise affecting the governance of Wales is shown in tonight's rather rushed debate, as we are examining the new clause in just one hour. I adopt wholly what has been said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) in respect of limbo-land, the movement of powers to the Welsh Office and the increasing alienation of the people of Wales. That is a real problem, which the Conservative party ignores at its peril, as we have seen in the results of not only the local elections but the recent European elections.
The Government are indeed isolated. I believe that their views are wholly undemocratic. I concede that many of the arguments that are now raised were rehearsed extensively


in the 1970s and that I took a different view at the time. But on balance I have come to a different view for a number of reasons: partly because of the centralisation that has come over local government since that time; partly because of the nature of the local government changes; and partly because of the current modest proposal for a body to deal with the strategic issues in Wales, the co-ordination and so on. That body will develop, or not, according to the views of the people of Wales. It will go as far and as fast as the debate in Wales takes it. I believe that that is the proper democratic way in which it should be seen.
A further major factor has been the European dimension. The Secretary of State has a view within the Cabinet against the developments in Europe which I believe does the Principality great harm, but that is another debate. But it is clear that the diversity in the European Community, which is reflected in all countries save our own—the most centralised of the European countries—must have implications for us. The quangocracy was mentioned earlier, and the increasing self-consciousness of the people of Wales, which is to be applauded.
I have but one minute, so I shall finish on this point. The Secretary of State is noted for his intellectual rigour and the independence with which he approaches problems of this nature. I urge him to cast aside the old shibboleths of the past. One can make the political arguments about the Conservatives now being—perhaps they always have been —the English nationalists and that they are being forced into their own strongholds as a result of the past few elections, but I urge him to look at the issue afresh, because it is serious. In my judgment, the people of Wales are becoming increasingly alienated. The Conservative party is being increasingly isolated. It ignores the issue at its peril.

Mr. Paul Flynn: In the debate on democracy in the European elections in my constituency nearly a week ago, the only candidate who did not turn up or send a representative was the Conservative candidate. We understand her impossible position in trying to justify the battered and abused democracy in Wales. A candidate who did turn up made a case saying that he did not believe in democracy, but in natural law. He thought that the world should be run by 7,000 yogic flyers. I reminded him that that is the sort of situation that we have in Wales. We have 7,000 people running the quangos, who are far more powerful than Welsh Members of Parliament, and far more powerful than all the members of local councils in Wales. What has happened in Wales is the mirror image of what has happened in eastern Europe. Even in countries such as Mongolia, Lithuania, Romania and Estonia, there was always a body of opinion—about 14 per cent. of people — who were genuine, ideological communists who believed in that system. There were shams of democratic institutions in all those countries in 1979 with no power. To achieve power, one had to be a card-carrying member of the communist party.
We have seen a transformation there, but we have seen the exact opposite in Wales over the past few years. There has been a decline in the power of all the democratically elected bodies; resources have been taken away from all the local authorities, and they have been replaced by quangos. I understand the enthusiasm for quangos expressed by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr.

Evans): he probably has more members of quangos as constituents than any other hon. Member, because of the "magic circle" in his area.
The point of tonight's debate is the way in which democracy has been destroyed in Wales. Hon. Members should look at the election figures. Last week, the Conservatives achieved a vote of 14 per cent.—a wipe-out, much closer to the vote secured by the Natural Law party than that secured by Labour. In last year's local government elections, Tories won 32 of 500 county council seats, and six Tory Members of Parliament were elected out of 38; in the district council elections Wales had 54 seats, of which the Conservatives won only one.
This is an abuse of democracy. The Tories are as popular in Wales now as Ceaucescu was in Romania at Christmas 1989. To deny democracy is dangerous and an abuse.

7 pm

Mr. Redwood: Time and again, Labour makes a general statement against centralisation and then, by actions, words and deeds, shows that its centralising heart is beating ever more strongly. It is always urging me to solve every problem in Wales, where many problems can and should be solved by local government and—I trust —will be solved by local government, under the new structure that we recommend.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) for pointing out that the assembly proposed in the new clause is a toothless tiger, not the sort that the nationalists are recommending. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that I do not want more powers and functions to gravitate to me; I strongly recognise the importance of good local government in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Let me tell the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that I would not swap Wales for Catalonia, as he wishes to do: Catalonia's unemployment is much higher and our prosperity machine is in much better gear. I hope that he welcomes those facts.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) suggested that Wales's system of local and national government was based on 7,000 yogic flyers on quangos. That may be the position on Newport council—I believe that it has set up a good many quangos, and it may be placing some odd people on them—but it is certainly not the Wales that I know and love. It is not the Wales represented by the Welsh Office and the House of Commons.
In Committee, Labour Members tabled amendment after amendment seeking more powers for the Secretary of State. They wanted me to call in planning applications more often to force local inquiries; they wanted me to designate strategic plan areas, to make more use of powers to monitor cross-border trading, to issue specific guidance to authorities on how to draw up service delivery plans, to issue more prescriptive guidance on decentralisation, to intervene to settle disputes between area committees and councils and to offer more guidance on transition committees. They even wanted me to draw up schedules of local authority members prescribing when they should retire. The Liberals joined in: they wanted me to establish a single trading standards authority for Wales, rather than such authorities being answerable to elected local government.
I would find Labour's attacks on quangos much more convincing if they ever countenanced the removal of any of the quangos that have been set up. When I suggest the abolition of some of them, howls of anguish go up from the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members cry, "No, Secretary of State, not this one—not now. Keep the quangos—keep them going." Labour councils themselves, of course, are mad keen on quangos. They have set up, or participate in, hundreds of them in Wales.
The other day, I read a list of appointments and nominations to outside bodies of just one council. Well over 100 bodies have places to which the council appoints its friends or councillors. They include everything from community centres to the Museum Council for Wales, best-kept village competitions, alms houses, community industry advisory panels, consortia of local authorities in Wales, the Federation of Industrial Development Associations—I have a much better list, but the time constraint is pressing. Quango-crazy Labour, in local government, even appoints—at public expense—national quango monitoring units, as Cardiff city council has done.
Labour should come down from its high horse and recognise that it is up to its eyes in quangos, that many of its people sit on them and that Labour councils have created far more quangos than the Welsh Office has ever dreamt of doing under a Conservative Government. It is local government's job to maintain proper control of the myriad local quangos that it helps to fund. Labour's proposals in the new clause would take powers away from elected local government in Wales and give them to a new regional assembly. I do not see why a new regional assembly would be better able to carry out the scrutiny required than local councils, which are closer to the local bodies concerned.
I believe that the Opposition leader-in-waiting—the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—favours more government for Wales. We look forward to his reconciling that with his only famous phrase so far. How did it go? "Tough on socialism", was it? "Tough on the causes of socialism"? We know his views, and his fashions come and go, like those of so many socialists nowadays. In 1983, he was against Europe; in 1994, he was head over heels in love with it. In 1983, he was against nuclear weapons; in 1994, no comment.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) checks carefully with the hon. Member for Sedgefield whether he has any chance of keeping his own job and whether the Welsh assembly is another policy that is here today and gone tomorrow. Certainly this policy is gone today—and here tonight I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 280.

Division No. 261]
[7.05 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Allen, Graham
Bayley, Hugh


Alton, David
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bell, Stuart


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Benton, Joe


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Austin-Walker, John
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blunkett, David





Boateng, Paul
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Boyes, Roland
Hood, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Hoon, Geoffrey


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hoyle, Doug


Burden, Richard
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Byers, Stephen
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim
Hutton, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jamieson, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Janner, Greville


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Church, Judith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jowell, Tessa


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Keen, Alan


Coffey, Ann
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cohen, Harry
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Connarty, Michael
Khabra, Piara S.


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Corbett, Robin
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corston, Ms Jean
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dafis, Cynog
Llwyd, Elfyn


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davidson, Ian
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAllion, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Dixon, Don
Macdonald, Calum


Dobson, Frank
McFall, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
McKelvey, William


Dowd, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Maclennan, Robert


Eagle, Ms Angela
McMaster, Gordon


Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin


Enright, Derek
MacShane, Denis


Etherington, Bill
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Faulds, Andrew
Mandelson, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Martlew, Eric


Foulkes, George
Maxton, John


Fraser, John
Meacher, Michael


Fyfe, Maria
Meale, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Michael, Alun


Garrett, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Milburn, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Miller, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morgan, Rhodri


Gordon, Mildred
Morley, Elliot


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grocott, Bruce
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gunnell, John
Mudie, George


Hain, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Hall, Mike
Murphy, Paul


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Harvey, Nick
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hodge, Margaret
Patchett, Terry


Hoey, Kate
Pendry, Tom






Pike, Peter L.
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Pope, Greg
Steinberg, Gerry


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Purchase, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reid, Dr John
Timms, Stephen


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tyler, Paul


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rooney, Terry
Wallace, James


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Watson, Mike


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Short, Clare
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spellar, John
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Mr. Eric Illsley.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Churchill, Mr


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arbuthnot, James
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkins, Robert
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bendall, Vivian
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Dicks, Terry


Booth, Hartley
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Bowis, John
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dunn, Bob


Brandreth, Gyles
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brazier, Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Bright, Graham
Eggar, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burns, Simon
Evennett, David


Burt, Alistair
Faber, David


Butler, Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Butterfill, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Carttiss, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cash, William
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)





Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Sir Peter
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mates, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gillan, Cheryl
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moss, Malcolm


Grylls, Sir Michael
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Irvine


Heald, Oliver
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert
Pickles, Eric


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Horam, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, Sir David
Shersby, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David
Sweeney, Walter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sykes, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)






Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Whitney, Ray


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Willetts, David


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tredinnick, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trend, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William



Walden, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Bowen Wells.


Waterson, Nigel

Question accordingly negatived.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request from a Transport Minister to make a statement to the House because I understand that No. 10 has now admitted that there has been direct ministerial involvement in today's strike? It would be helpful if the House were to be told that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The occupant of the Chair has received no request for a statement.

New clause 13

MAGISTRATES' COURTS, JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ETC.

'.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order make, with respect to any matters mentioned in subsection (2), such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in consequence of any of the provisions of this Act.
(2) The matters are—

(a) the functions or areas of jurisdiction of any justice of the peace, stipendiary magistrate, magistrates' court or keeper of the rolls for a commission area (within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979); and
(b) commission areas, petty sessions areas and areas to which magistrates' courts committees relate.

(3) The Lord Chancellor may by order alter, in such manner as appears to him expedient in connection with the alteration in any local government area made by this Act, any of—

(a) the commission areas in Wales specified in section 1 of the Act of 1979,
(b) the areas in Wales which constitute petty sessions areas under section 4 of that Act, or
(c) the areas in Wales to which magistrates' courts committees relate under section 19 of that Act.

(4) Any order under this section may, in particular—

(a) make provision with respect to the costs and expenses of any persons with respect to whom provision is made by the order;
(b) apply (with or without modifications) or amend or repeal or revoke (with or without savings) any provision of an Act passed before this Act or in the same Session, or an instrument made under such an Act before 1st April 1996.

(5) Subsections (7) and (9) of section 54 apply in relation to this section as they apply in relation to that section.'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 72, 105 to 109, 73, 75, 83 and 84.

Mr. Jones: We have tabled the amendments at this late stage because we wish to take account of the provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill currently being considered in Committee. The amendments make provision in respect of the Lord Chancellor and of functions in connection with magistrates courts, justices of the peace and so on. The Bill currently provides for these in clauses 54(4) and (5) together with schedule 2(10).
In addition, the amendments remove subsections (4) and (5) from clause 54, provide a separate clause in respect of the Lord Chancellor and his functions, expand the provisions in schedule 2 and make consequential amendments to clauses 56, 57, 62 and 65.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am amazed that the Minister can introduce a disgraceful new clause so glibly. The new clause exposes the muddle in which the Government find themselves over various pieces of legislation and the incompetence of Ministers who cannot think through the implications of their proposals. The Minister has given no reason for allowing the Lord Chancellor to take the very wide powers contained in the new clause.
The Minister said that the new clause is meant to take into account the provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, but the Committee considering that Bill, on which I am leading for the Opposition, has not yet reached the part of the Bill that deals with magistrates courts. As drafted, that Bill is a good deal more limited and does not need the wide and sweeping powers that the Minister wishes to introduce into this Bill.
We need an explanation from the Minister because the new clause provides much greater powers than those provided in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. The widest of those powers enables the Government, or the Lord Chancellor, to revoke primary legislation by order. That cannot be right. It certainly cannot be right for the Minister to propose such a new clause without offering an explanation or seeking to justify the Government's approach.
In the short time since the new clause was tabled, it has received considerable criticism and caused questions to be asked about the Government's motives and intentions. The Minister has not explained those motives and intentions and has provided no justification for suggesting such wide-ranging powers. The suspicion is that the Government are trying to take powers by the back door under this Bill which would not be provided under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. It will certainly be a matter for considerable comment when the Committee reassembles to consider that Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who speaks for the Opposition on matters concerning the Lord Chancellor's Department, will raise several issues at that point.
The Government are seeking to reorganise magistrates courts' functions in Wales without consultation. Even clause 62 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which is the relevant piece of legislation, allows for consultation, so one has to ask what is happening. Is the Lord Chancellor going to climb down over clause 62 of that Bill, which would mean that powers have to be inserted into this Bill in order to enable the Government to make the desired changes?
New Clause 13(4)(b) provides the power to revoke primary legislation by order. We can pray against an order


and force a debate in the House, but an order cannot be amended, so the power over primary legislation that is being given to Ministers in the new clause is most unusual and peculiar and certainly requires some explanation by the Minister.
The Government are impaled on their own timetable for local government reform. An attempt has been made to railroad through the measures in Wales and, even on the basis of the slightly slower timetable to which the Government are now committed, there is still not adequate time to deal properly with all the issues.
Let us consider the magistrates courts areas that the Government are proposing. The Government propose three magistrates courts committee areas to replace the four that we now have. The proposed areas form some pretty odd clusters. It is proposed to merge South Glamorgan with what are referred to as the Glamorgan valleys—basically, Rhondda, Pontypridd and Cynon valley. That area is not quite the old East Glamorgan as outlined in the legislation when local government was last reformed. Once again, the Government are in a muddle. I do not in any case believe that it is sensible to make such an amalgamation. The communities of South Glamorgan and those in a part of what is now Mid Glamorgan have their own characteristics and interests, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will wish to say something about the specific concerns of their areas.
Bridgend is currently part of Mid Glamorgan, but the Government propose to bolt it on to West Glamorgan. There is no rhyme or reason in that proposal, but they intend to go ahead. Ministers will be given powers without being required to offer consultation. Why are the Government proceeding in this way?
Merthyr and Caerphilly are being put with Gwent. In view of the borders now being discussed, it might be that the Caerphilly and Rhymney valley area should be put with Gwent for the sake of some functions, such as policing. If so, there should be an element of coterminosity with the magistrates courts areas. I can understand the arguments for that, but not in relation to Merthyr. However, the Minister has not even tried to outline the logic of the Government's thinking.
The Government are impaled on their own timetable because they have to make changes to ensure that the magistrates courts' areas are designated. If they are not, there will be no county council to which they can be accountable or to provide the necessary funds. The problem needs to be sorted out within the designated time scale, but, in case the Minister is not aware of this, I must point to him that, as long ago as April 1993, senior officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department were told during visits to south Wales that there was an urgent need to get the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Local Government (Wales) Bill sorted out so that they can complement each other. But last-minute amendments and new clauses are now being introduced on the Floor of the House while the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill is still in Committee. Will amendments be tabled to that Bill in the next couple of weeks or, indeed, on Report, or are the inconsistencies between the two Bills to remain? It is proof of gross incompetence that the two Bills have not been considered together.
I also understand that the question of who is the keeper of the rolls and lord lieutenant are yet to be sorted out. In any event, they need to be sorted out in such a way as to represent the interests of the local communities involved. Local people and officials of the various courts are attempting to find a sensible solution to the problem. There is no need to place in the hands of Ministers the draconian and wide-ranging powers proposed in the new clause.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these matters in his capacity as a Front-Bench spokesman for Labour. Is he aware that magistrates and magistrates' clerks in rural mid Wales are frustrated because they do not believe that the Lord Chancellor's Department appreciates the size of rural mid Wales? They feel that they are being forced into amalgamation which may mean that the administration of magistrates courts is difficult to envisage in future. I have received from magistrates many objections to what is being proposed.

Mr. Michael: I am aware of those concerns in rural areas. There is a sense of unity right across Wales on that subject. It is felt generally that the Lord Chancellor's Department does not understand or care and does not want to listen to the views of those involved in the very important task of delivering justice at local level. Criticisms have been made by magistrates through their associations and by many of them individually. Criticisms have been made by magistrates' clerks who have experience of dealing with that administration. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is absolutely right. He voices the concerns of his area, but, in fact, every hon. Member who represents a Welsh constituency, whether rural or city or valley could stand up and make that point. I certainly accept it as being an accurate description of the problem in many parts of Wales.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I wish to restrain the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) from agreeing too much with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery because part of Powys is in the area that I represent. In the past three weeks, representatives of the Powys magistrates court committee have met the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department specifically to discuss the needs of rural Wales and they were very pleased by the reception that they received. They said to me that there was a clear understanding of the problems in mid-Wales and they were given various reassurances.

Mr. Michael: I understand the hon. Gentleman's need to try to make the Government whom he supports look reasonable and to suggest that they are listening. If there were reasonableness and listening, there would be no need for the new clause. The hon. Gentleman must be listening to some strange sources, because that is certainly not what I hear from people around the country as they express their concerns. The hon. Gentleman, having made his point, has now lost interest.
We need to know from the Minister why those powers are required. Is it right that, in a Bill dealing with Welsh local government, power should be given to the Lord Chancellor to change primary legislation by order, rather than through a proper process? Is it right, when a Bill


dealing with magistrates courts is on its way through the House and still has to be dealt with in Committee, that such powers should be sought during the Report stage of a Bill not dealing with magistrates courts issues? Is it right that Ministers should fail so clearly to get their act together and that they should seek powers to enable them to sort out the muddle without listening to the voices of those who deal with justice, those who live in the areas affected, those who are magistrates and those who deal with the administration of justice?
There has also been considerable criticism of clause 62 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill because it is felt that there has not been adequate provision for consultation. Yet here we have something in an entirely different Bill which does not even allow for the extent of consultation allowed in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. There is considerable concern that the Government's wish to reduce from 105 to between 50 and 60 the number of magistrates courts committees is being driven forward without regard to the interests of those areas that will be affected. Justice in a magistrates courts context is a local issue and a local matter. The commitment of magistrates in giving their time voluntarily to exercise judicial responsibilities in their local communities is not being respected by the Government. That has led to enormous ill feeling. The feelings of those volunteers should not be disregarded in this way.
I cannot see any justification for the Government's seeking the powers in the new clause and I certainly cannot see the justification for their disregarding the proper processes not only of consultation but of legislation in this way. The Minister should recognise the constitutional impropriety of the new clause, withdraw it and let any amendments be made in a considered way in the Committee considering the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. That would give Welsh Members an opportunity, during the Report stage of that Bill, to consider any provisions relating to Wales in the context of what is happening to magistrates courts generally and to deal with the matter in a more responsible and considered way. This is not the way in which to deal with such important issues. I hope that the Minister will withdraw the new clause and accept the points and criticism that I have made.
Perhaps the new clause and amendments have not been drafted by the Welsh Office but have been thrust on an unwilling Minister. I should be happy to hear the Minister say that, and say that, on reflection, he is willing to take them back and see whether he can get more sense out of the Lord Chancellor's Department than his light-weight introduction to the new clause suggested he has been given so far. Certainly, Opposition Members need a lot more answers before we can feel anything but uneasy about the proposition before us.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry to have to comment in this way about the Under-Secretary of State for Wales because, in Committee, we appreciated the patience with which he sought to explain the Government's position on various issues, even when the case was weak, but, in this case, the way in which he introduced the new clause was an insult to the House. We watched him. He had half a page of an explanation which he read out head down and which, clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, did not come from the

Welsh Office. He did not explain the origins of the new clause and he did not give us reasons for it or go through it and explain it to us.
In introducing any new clause, it is a Minister's responsibility to explain why one subsection says this and why another subsection says that. I hope that in his winding-up speech he will produce a slightly longer explanation and interpretation of the new clause.
We have just heard a tirade in the winding-up speech of the Secretary of State about centralising tendencies. I can think of no more centralising language than that written into the new clause. In the opening paragraph, it states that the Lord Chancellor may by order make various changes, as he thinks necessary, in certain "matters". Those "matters" include the functions of a justice of the peace —not only the areas of jurisdiction, but the functions. What are the functions? Why in the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords] is there a provision for the Lord Chancellor to be able to alter and change the functions of a justice of the peace? I understand that the Lord Chancellor may need power to try to change the areas and to make them coterminous.
The Justices of the Peace Act 1979—I went to the Library earlier when I saw the new clause—refers, of course, to the counties. The magistrates committees are county based and the Justices of the Peace Act incorporates the counties. I understand the necessity to change that legislation when one is doing away with counties or altering the boundaries. But will the Under-Secretary explain, before we approve the clause, why the Lord Chancellor will need the power to alter, as he may think necessary or expedient, the functions of a justice of the peace in a Bill on the reorganisation of Welsh local government?
Secondly, I turn to what I thought was the purpose of the clause. Subsection (3) states:
The Lord Chancellor may by order alter, in such a manner as appears to him expedient in connection with the alteration in any local government area … any of the commission areas in Wales specified in section 1 of the Act of 1979.
That provision gives the Lord Chancellor power to change the areas or to relate them to changes in local government reorganisation in Wales. The reason why we are so profoundly concerned—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made the valid point—is that the clause includes no provision for consultation in any shape or form. Perhaps that consultation provision is in another Bill. My hon. Friend is an expert on the Bill and he may tell us why a consultation process has to occur.
The reason why I shall not support the power suggested in the new clause is that I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor understands or knows about the geographical problems and the areas of the communities that he serves. If he were aware of those problems, he would not have produced the proposals with regard to the reorganisation of magistrates courts committees. The proposals conflict with the changes at local level proposed in the Bill. It is suggested that Merthyr should be included in Gwent.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: From my discussions with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, I understand that the map that was produced, which has led to the comments made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), contains indicative, not specific, proposals.
The indications given to the delegation that I took to the Lord Chancellor's Department were that the Department currently does not have a specific view on the new areas.

Mr. Rowlands: I am willing to accept the word "indicative". The proposals are indeed indicative of the Lord Chancellor's knowledge and understanding of the communities that we represent. They show how little he knows. It is clear that he has no understanding of geography or community. If he had such an understanding, he would not have produced his indicative map which proposes that Merthyr be included in Gwent.
As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) will be aware, I supported with elan some of the changes made by the Government in Committee. It is clear that changes in local government boundaries place Merthyr in the Mid Glamorgan preserved county area. They do not carry it across into Gwent.
The proposals come from the Lord Chancellor. In new clause 13, the Lord Chancellor wants to take power by order to alter and amend areas and boundaries. If that is indicative of what the Lord Chancellor understands about the geography of our communities, the last thing that we should do is give him such sweeping powers in the knowledge that his Department is, by its nature, a very central Department which does not understand such matters.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend asked me about the difference between this Bill and the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill with regard to consultation. In clause 62 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill there is a requirement that, before making an order in exercising his powers, the Lord Chancellor shall consult

"(a) the magistrates for each of the existing magistrates' courts committee areas to which the order relates,
(b) the magistrates' courts committees to which the proposal relates, and
(c) every interested authority."
What is being sought in this Bill seems to override that.
If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) is correct and what we have are not even proposals for consultation, but just an indicative first stab based on nothing very substantial, goodness knows what we can depend on in terms of consultation.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend underlines the point forcefully. When the Minister replies to the debate, he should tell us why new clause 13 does not contain a form of words equivalent to that in clause 62 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill when the Lord Chancellor exercises the powers that we are being asked to give him.
It is very difficult for us to relate the new clause to another Bill that is still in Committee and which has yet to return to the Floor of the House to be approved by the House. If a consultation process exists in one Bill, it should surely exist in the context of the powers that the Lord Chancellor is seeking in the new clause. That difficulty underlines the Minister's total failure to explain the new clause to us properly.
7.45 pm
The Minister must tell us why the new clause does not contain a provision for consultation such as that in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. He must also tell us

why the Lord Chancellor is taking power in a Welsh local government Bill to affect the functions of a justice of the peace.
I am uneasy about the proposal because the other thing that is behind all this is the mooted huge rationalisation with regard to the local benches. From Tudor times, the development of the concept of the justices of the peace has been based on local justice. With the limited powers available to them, a group of local justices would be able to administer justice in communities of which they were members. Community is basic to the concept of a justice of the peace.
I believe that in many cases, the local benches will be merged. They will be rolled up into one large bench. For example, the local commission of peace currently administered through Pontlottyn may eventually end up in Cardiff. That is the other agenda. The concept of a local bench will be removed. The bench at Pontlottyn is currently manned by people who perform amazingly valiant service to the local community. They have a real understanding and feeling of the nature of the problems of the community. In many cases, they handle the issues with great sensitivity. I do not want those benches to be rolled up and to serve from Cardiff.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: While I largely agree with my hon. Friend, does he accept that magistrates increasingly face threats of intimidation when they sit on local cases in their areas? Some provision must be made to ensure that that intimidation does not undermine justice in that community.

Mr. Rowlands: I have not come across such sad symptoms too often, although I can think of a particular incident in my own community.
I am not talking about a sympathetic bench. In many cases, we want a bench to be firm and strong in its attitudes in respect of some of the anti-social behaviour that sadly occurs in some of our communities by an increasing minority. However, when people come before local benches, in Pontlottyn or Merthyr, that bench should be manned by people who understand and know that community and—as is almost entirely the case in our area —who live within that community.
Behind the proposals in the Bill, the other rationalisation that will be driven through is that with regard to the merger of the benches. We would lose the essential local community character of a magistrates court which I thought was the very reason why we have a system of local justices of the peace.

Mr. Michael: I agree whole-heartedly with the basic principle that my hon. Friend is enunciating. I suggest to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) that the problem should be dealt with not by merging benches or creating great anonymous areas, but through the provision which already exists by which, where appropriate, a case can be heard by a bench outside the area concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower was right to highlight the problem, but that can be dealt with already under the existing arrangements.

Mr. Rowlands: As always, my hon. Friend, who has immersed himself in these issues, enlightens us and I thank him for that.
We should not approve the new clause until the Minister has explained the nature of subsection (2)(a) and why we


should give powers to the Lord Chancellor in a local government Bill to alter the functions of a justice of the peace. Because it is indicative of what we think the Lord Chancellor might be up to, and because the map to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor referred reveals geographic ignorance of our communities, we should not give such powers to the Lord Chancellor without the inclusion of proper statutory consultations in the new clause.
I should like a reassurance from the Minister about the parallel agenda. I should like him to reassure me that my fear about the merger of the benches, which would destroy the very nature of community justice represented by the commission of the justices of the peace, is unfounded.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I seek just two assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister. As I read the new clause, it is clear that it is dependent upon being in consequence of any of the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I take it that it is intended that one deals with magistrates courts areas —jurisdictions, if one likes—precisely in accordance with the changes that we have brought about in terms of the boundaries of local government within Wales. I have no doubt, particularly because we see in subsection (3) that that phrase is again repeated in relation to changes necessary
in connection with the alteration in any local government area
that that is why the new clause has been brought forward.

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer; therefore, we need to pick his brain. Why are the words "the functions or" included, if that is his interpretation of the purpose of the new clause?

Mr. Evans: I do not want to make the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister; no doubt he will tell us. It seems that any changes in the functions would have to be changes that were
necessary or expedient in consequence of
the passing of the Bill. It is not therefore not quite the sort of broad power to which the hon. Gentleman was referring.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Evans: Again, I do not want to be lengthy about this matter.

Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that allowance is made in the Bill for subsequent changes, which could be not just now but at times in the future, and that that in itself could lead to a consequential peg on which to hang changes which of course could be consequential, because it is not we who define "consequential"?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman made his own speech. It will be for my hon. Friend the Minister to answer for the Government. I am just seeking assurances from the Government; I am not here to give assurances to the Opposition. On my previous point, though, I seek the assurance that my interpretation of the new clause is correct. On the face of it, it seems to be directed in that way.
I mentioned in an intervention that I had a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department precisely because of some concerns about the indicative map that has been produced in relation to Powys. It was clear that that document was produced merely for indicative purposes and that it is not a template

of change as far as the Lord Chancellor's Department is concerned. In view of some of the remarks that have been made, it is important to make that point.
One point that I put to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on that occasion and which officials had not previously heard, but promised to give some attention to, is whether, in the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, there should not only be consultation on new magistrates courts boundaries, if there are to be amalgamations, but consideration of the possibility that any amalgamation might be subject to an affirmative resolution within the House. I know that that matter is currently being considered by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
I seek the assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that, by passing this new clause, which I am perfectly happy to do, we will in no sense restrict any change that the Lord Chancellor's Department may subsequently agree in terms of the Police and Magistrates Courts' Bill requiring there to be an affirmative resolution before there could be any amalgamation of magistrates courts areas generally.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: We have had a kind reference to patience. Perhaps that quality is still needed in the debate. I must tell Opposition Members that the powers to change areas and functions have been in clause 54(4) since it was first introduced. As I listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), I tried to make up my mind whether it was a case of much ado about nothing or of the hon. Gentleman being excessively cautious. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I prefer to think that it is the latter.
It is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Opposition Front Bench on Welsh affairs. It is good to see him there. We had been wondering whether we would see much more of him in that position in future, but I had better not digress further.

Mr. Michael: I thank the Minister for his welcome. It is because of the mixture of judicial and criminal justice issues and local government issues that, with well-known tolerance, my colleagues in the Welsh team have invited me to contribute to the debate. I am grateful to them for that.
Can the Minister point to the place in the Bill where subsection (4)(b) of the new clause was previously put? That is the bit that gives the Government power to amend primary legislation by order.

Mr. Jones: I will cover that point in a moment.
New clause 13 provides my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor with the equivalent powers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in clause 54. Subsection (3) of the new clause will provide the Lord Chancellor with the ability to make further orders with respect to commission areas, petty sessions areas and magistrates courts committees in connection with alterations made in local government areas by the Bill. That is necessitated by the fact that, for the moment, as far as possible the status quo is to be preserved. The expanded sections inserted into schedule 2 by amendments Nos. 83 and 84 will ensure that those areas are based on preserved county areas. They are currently based on the county area. However, subsection (3) of the new clause will enable my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, should he consider it expedient in future, to alter those areas to match them with the new principal areas.
Perhaps I should explain further some of the other amendments. Amendment No. 73 will tie my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor into clause 62 and give him equivalent powers to those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 75 will bring the new clause into force on enactment. Amendments Nos. 105 to 109 are consequential, to take account of new clause 13.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has not yet explained to us the consequential changes made by the Local Government (Wales) Bill to the functions of a justice of the peace.

Mr. Jones: That is an important point. The points made by the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth are essentially all for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. All that these amendments do is to allow him to alter those areas because of changes to local government boundaries made by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about functions. There is nothing novel about the amendments. There is the precedent of section 19(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1992 which provides power to make regulations and to make consequential, supplementary, et cetera provisions as to the functions or areas of
any justice of the peace, stipendiary magistrate, coroner or keeper of the rolls".
We have to be able to change those, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, so that magistrates' boundaries tie in with unitary authority boundaries. The problem arises purely and simply because the areas are defined by reference to counties. If my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made changes to functions, it would have to be incidental, consequential, et cetera, to the local government changes made by this Bill. It is thus not a completely unfettered power to change functions.

Mr. Rowlands: I understand that, but will the Minister give an example of the type of function—as opposed to area—that is changed by the local government reorganisation?

Mr. Jones: They are functions entirely consequential to the changes made in the Local Government (Wales) Bill. I hesitate to give examples of functions, as I am not an expert in that matter, but I imagine that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will pursue certain expert questions when the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill is considered in Committee.

Mr. Michael: The trouble is that we cannot pursue this legislation during the Committee stage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. That is why I said that these amendments should have been made to that Bill and not to this Bill. I invite the Minister to respond to my hon. Friend's request by giving us just one simple example of a function that might change. The Minister suggested that I might have some expertise. I cannot think of one function that could or should be changed. One is therefore bound to be suspicious and to ask what the Minister and the Lord Chancellor are up to.

Mr. Jones: I shall not go any further on that point.
I trust that that will also be the assurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has sought. I am grateful to him for his intervention.
In answer to the question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, the equivalent of subsection (4)(b) of the new clause is clause 54(2)(e). Again, there is nothing novel about that.
I was glad to hear the earlier intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, which he repeated in his remarks, about the way in which mid-Wales has been considered in arrangements for that part of Wales. That practical example is the best response to the legitimate concerns expressed by Opposition Members about consultations.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry to keep interrupting, but this is the Report stage of the Bill. Has the Minister made it clear to the Lord Chancellor's Department, by the usual means, that the proposed map—and especially the notion of putting Merthyr into the Gwent committee area—is completely in conflict with the whole shape and character of local government changes as proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Jones: I regard the map as essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. Within the usual consultations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken, and will take, the opportunity to offer his comments so that the eventual decision is best informed and the right decision is taken.

8 pm

Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. A moment ago, the Minister said that clause 54(2)(e) provided the powers which are contained in new clause 13 with regard to the Lord Chancellor. However, clause 54(1), which contains the appropriate designation, refers only to the Secretary of State and clearly refers to consequential requirements for applying, amending, repealing or revoking legislation as a result of the Bill going through' —that is, matters relating to local government, which is what the Bill is about. It does not in any sense make the type of provision that is in the new clause with regard to magistrates courts or the functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
It is clear that the Minister has been placed in a difficult position, perhaps as a result of taking on board amendments to help the Lord Chancellor's Department. I suggest that he is wrong in what he is saying. He should withdraw the new clause and let the Lord Chancellor get the Under-Secretary of State to propose amendments to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill so that the matter can be debated properly in Committee and on the Floor of the House on Report, rather than rushing the amendments through in this way. The Minister is wrong in what he says.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am relatively confident that I am not wrong in what I am saying. Neither clause 54(2)(e) nor clause 51(4)(1) is changed by this group of amendments, although running through the amendments is a process of putting the Lord Chancellor in the same position as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not feel able to comment on what amendments may be tabled in Committee on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, but I am sure that the right amendments will be tabled where necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 14

AREA COMMITTEES: SAFEGUARDS

`.—(1) Where an area committee has been established by a council in accordance with an approved decentralisation scheme—

(a) the council shall not, except with the agreement of the committee, abolish the committee or alter any arrangements in force with respect to the committee which were made in accordance with the scheme as originally approved or which have subsequently been agreed with the committee; and
(b) nothing in section 101(4) of the 1972 Act (power of local authority to exercise functions otherwise discharged by committee) shall be taken to authorise the council to exercise any functions which are to be discharged by the committee, except as provided for by the scheme.

(2) Every decentralisation scheme shall include provision, to be given effect to by the standing orders of the council concerned, for the majority required in order for any suspending resolution to be passed to be such majority greater than a simple majority as may be specified by the scheme.
(3) In subsection (2) "suspending resolution", in relation to a decentralisation scheme, means a resolution to suspend any of the arrangements in force with respect to an area committee established in accordance with the scheme. '.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clauses 15 and 18.
Amendment No. 2, in clause 27, page 20, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 22.
Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
Amendment No. 1, in clause 28, page 22, line 4, leave out from beginning to
`end of line 12 on page 23.
Government amendments Nos. 56 to 58.
Amendment No. 25, in page 22, line 34, leave out
'sections 102(3) of the 1972 Act (Power to include persons who are not members of the local authority concerned)'
and insert 'section'.
Amendment No. 26, in page 22, leave out line 42.
Amendment No. 27, in page 23, line 4, at end insert—
`(f) an area committee may co-opt additional persons to serve as members of the committee, but such persons shall not have the right to vote on any resolution of the committee.'.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The amendments and new clauses represent our response to the views expressed by hon. Members in Committee about the organisation of area committees once they have been established. The deletion of provisions from clause 28 and their replacement by three new clauses, each dealing with a different aspect of the matter, is intended to facilitate reading and understanding.
New clause 14 for the most part reproduces the safeguards for area committees that were built into the clause as it stands. However, it has a new provision which adds a further safeguard in that it disapplies section 101(4) of the Local Government Act 1972—relating to the power of a local authority to exercise functions otherwise discharged by a committee—except as provided for in the scheme. Altogether, we believe that the safeguards will enable committees with the necessary degree of independence to be created and ensure that they can be abolished, their functions changed or their decisions overturned only with their agreement.
New clause 15 fulfils our commitment to provide for the co-option of additional persons to serve as members of an area committee. We all agree that it will be useful for committees to be able to call on the expertise and experience of people who are not members of the committee by virtue of their having been elected from the area covered by the committee.
The new clause also makes provision for an area committee to arrange for the discharge of any its functions by a local authority other than the authority which made the scheme—if authorised to do so in the decentralisation scheme. That will enable an area committee to discharge a service delegated to it in the same way as a full council might exercise that responsibility. In practice, we expect that power to be used mainly to enable area committees to arrange for community councils to discharge certain of their functions for them.

Mr. Wigley: There are two matters on which I should be grateful for the Minister's response. First, will the co-opted members of an area committee count towards a quorum? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the area committee can be a unit in its own right for the purposes of language schemes under the Welsh Language Act 1993?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I can certainly confirm the second point. Of course, it will depend on the committee's decision. As for a quorum, I should have thought that it must comprise the voting members of the committee, and the co-opted members would not be taken into account for that purpose.

Mr. Alex Carlile: With regard to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), will the Minister explain how a body that has no legal status whatever, as was confirmed in Committee, can be a unit for the purposes of Welsh language schemes? If a body can be a unit for the purposes of Welsh language schemes, why can it not be a unit for the purposes of making contracts and incurring legal liability?

Sir Wyn Roberts: We went over this ground at considerable length in Committee. When it comes to the question of languages and the provision of a translation service, I should have thought that a committee of a council could take its own decisions in such a matter. That would certainly fall within its purview as a committee because, after all, it is to do with the committee's procedure.

Mr. Rowlands: Pursuing the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), will the Minister tell the House whether any of the amendments and new clauses clarify the legal liability and the legal personalities of the area committees? The Minister is absolutely right in saying that we went over the matter in Committee. As a result, we found confusion and muddle in the Government's mind and in their attitude towards the whole subject of area committees. Will the area committees be liable for their own actions?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am continuing to describe the committees. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall explain further what the new clauses do. They supplement clause 28 considerably in that we are adding new clauses.
New clause 18 clarifies the position relating to the setting up of sub-committees of area committees and the


exercise of the responsibilities delegated to them. The clause also provides for co-option of additional persons to sub-committees, to serve as members.
Our proposals in new clauses 15 and 18 for co-option to area committees and their sub-committees fulfil—I believe —the undertakings given to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in the Standing Committee. In the light of our new clauses, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendments.

Mr. Ron Davies: With the greatest of respect, the Minister is describing the provisions in new clauses 15 and 18, which we can all read and understand. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked very pertinent and precise questions and the Minister said that he would deal with them in a moment. There is nothing in the new clauses—

Sir Wyn Roberts: No.

Mr. Davies: It is no good the Minister saying no, because he did. He said—I noted it—that he would have thought that a sub-committee could make a decision. It takes a great stretch of the imagination for the Minister to come to the startling conclusion that a sub-committee can take a decision.
I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Can an area committee take a decision relating to a language scheme or anything else that is contrary the declared policy of the principal council? That matter is important in defining the relationship between such committees and the principal councils and is at the heart of the new clauses. The Minister should deal with that question rather than going into the realms of waffle.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I thought that I had dealt with all the interventions to the satisfaction of those hon. Members who intervened, but I shall say more about the quorum. It is common sense that the establishment of a quorum in a body that has voting and co-opted members is a matter for the voting members to sort out.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) amplified the question on the language issue raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) by asking about a situation in which there was conflict between a committee and the main authority. Again, those are matters that should properly be covered by the scheme for decentralisation that the authority will submit for our approval.

Mr. Rowlands>: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have not forgotten the point made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

Mr. Ron Davies: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have a number of points to pursue, too.

Mr. Ron Davies: The matter is of central importance. We debated it at great length in Committee and the Minister undertook to clarify it. He said that such matters could be resolved under the scheme, but who will approve

the scheme? The Minister will do so. If he is asking us to accept the new clauses, we ought to have a statement on the central relationship between an area committee and the principal council. Is the Minister going to approve schemes that give area committees powers to take decisions on matters of policy or administration?

Mr. Alex Carlile: Or money.

Mr. Davies: Indeed, or money. The list is endless. Will the Minister approve schemes under which decisions can be taken that are contrary to the principles or the policies of the principal council? That question defines the relationship between committees and principal councils. Under powers given by the Bill, the Minister will approve such schemes, so what is in his mind? It is no good his saying that he thought that the scheme would cover it. What is he going to do about it?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall explain many of the points that are raised, if only the House will be patient.
Let me deal with the issue of co-optees. We believe that members of an area committee should be fully accountable for their decisions and that generally only councillors elected for that area should have the right to vote. We have had to make an exception, however, in the case of representatives of churches that appoint foundation governors of voluntary schools. Under the Education Act 1993, the Secretary of State can direct that such representatives be appointed to committees dealing with education and that they should have voting rights. If an area committee has education functions—we made it clear in Committee that only minor education functions might be delegated—it is necessary for the voting rights of church representatives to be safeguarded as we have done in the new clauses.
Hon. Members have mentioned funding and other issues. The Government propose that the decentralisation scheme should set out how an area committee's budget would be calculated and specify a minimum proportion of an authority's revenue budget to be delegated to the area committee. The proportion would vary from scheme to scheme, depending on the functions proposed for each area committee. Where the whole of an authority was covered by area committees, the minimum amount to be delegated might total one third of the authority's budget.
8.15 pm
The scheme would guarantee the minimum proportion, unless the area committee and the authority agreed that it should move upwards or downwards in the light of experience or changing circumstances. Within the block resources delegated to it, the area committee would set its spending priorities and be able to build up reserves and retain revenue from services for which it was responsible, such as car parking.
On capital finance, applications for supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—would be co-ordinated by the authority, although area committees could play a role.

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: If the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me, this is an important matter and I have not finished dealing with it, as it is not simple.
As I said, applications for supplementary credit approvals would be co-ordinated by the authority, although area committees could play a significant role in preparing


bids for their areas. Schemes could provide for area committees to have responsibility for SCA-supported projects for functions delegated to them and could receive an agreed allocation of capital resources for those functions —from basic credit approvals and reserves.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary offered in Committee to consider whether area committees should have powers to influence the levels of council tax. We can see that such powers have their attractions and would reinforce the accountability of councillors to their electors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered the matter carefully, in consultation with colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Treasury. It has become clear that such powers would involve substantial legal difficulties, which we have been unable to resolve. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) that, regretfully, we have concluded that we should not amend the Bill on that issue.

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: Perhaps, before I return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and touched on by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, I had better give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Carlile: I do not want the Minister's reference to car parks to pass without asking him to inform the House what would happen, for example, to the reserve built up from the enormous revenue earned from the Welshpool Smithfield car park? Let us suppose that the area committee put the reserve into a bank deposit account and that there was a fund to spend. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, under the scheme that the Government are providing, the area committee—even if it wanted to enter into a contract to put up a hut for the car park attendant—could not do so because it would have no power to do so? The contract for the car park attendant's hut, using the area committee's money, would have to be entered into by the unitary authority which might not want the car park attendant to have a hut. Is not that factually and legally correct, and how does the Minister defend it?

Sir Wyn Roberts: We have said time and again that it is a matter for the area committees, and the authorities must draft schemes for the delegation of functions to the area committees. The schemes and the functions delegated will vary considerably, and it is for the area committees and their respective authorities to decide what kind of scheme is acceptable to them within the parameters that I am laying down at the moment.
I know what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is after—he wants us to declare that the area committees are corporate bodies. But we have made it clear that they are similar to other authority committees. Committees that exist under the present county council system, for example, do not have the corporate status that he is after.
We are going over matters which were, I thought, dealt with adequately in Committee. I have already made the point that committees of local authorities take decisions now on matters for which responsibility has been delegated to them. No one worries now about accountability or responsibility on the part of those committees.

Mr. Wigley: I did not serve on the Committee and, to that extent, I am perhaps a little bit at a loss compared with

my colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all."] That may be the case. What happens if an area committee, by virtue of an act of commission or omission, finds itself in a surchargeable position? Are only the councillors on the area committee are liable in law, or is the full authority?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Councillors are responsible for their own actions. Members of the area committees are also members of the full authority and, therefore, as members of the full authority, they might be liable to surcharge. The co-opted members obviously would not carry the same responsibility.
I also emphasise that, as with the present system where the main authority is responsible for its committee's activities, so it would be under our proposed system. The main authority would be responsible for the actions of the members of its area committees who, of course, are also members of the authority.

Mr. Rowlands: That is an amazing statement. It was prefaced by a lengthy statement describing the enormous power of area committees. The committees could have a percentage of the revenues of the local authority and of the block grants of certain amounts of capital expenditure. Is the Minister saying that, if those funds are misappropriated, are not spent in a proper manner and become subject to a district audit, the principal council becomes collectively liable and responsible?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I want to make it clear that, as with the present system, individual councillors will be responsible under the new system for any erroneous decisions which result in their surcharge.

Mr. Paul Murphy: It has been four years since we first started thinking about local government reorganisation in Wales. It is certainly three or four years since the Government issued consultative papers, Green Papers, White Papers, Bills of one sort and Bills of another. Here we are at the very last stage of our proceedings in the House of Commons, and we are still muddled, confused and besotted by the question of area committees. I suspect that if the Committee stage and the stages in the House went on any further, the situation would get worse day by day.
Frankly, I think that this is the most disappointing part of the Bill. It has been conceived in haste and as a direct result of the Government's attempt—in the Minister of State's own words in the Standing Committee—to pacify people in the Conservative party, and mainly the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). Because the Minister could not deliver—or did not want to deliver, for whatever reason—separate unitary authorities in rural mid-Wales, the Government tried to cobble together this area committee nonsense to appease and to pacify.
The problem is that the Government are then visiting on the whole of local government in Wales a confused, unaccountable and badly thought-out system of local government. I wish to speak briefly to the amendments standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends which would delete the whole area committee part of the Bill. Frankly, I am convinced that anybody involved in the working and running of local authorities in Wales—county councillors or district councillors—will live to see the folly of this part of the legislation.
We have been landed with a two-tier system when the whole purpose of the Bill is to create a unitary system of


local government. We might disagree on some aspects of that, but the idea of having a single tier was the attraction which the Government have tried to sell to the people of wales. But as soon as they came to a political problem —a handful of the majority in one constituency in the middle of rural Wales—the whole reform of local government had to be put out of gear.
There might be some sense in it if the Government said that area committees would be placed in all parts of Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who spoke well in the earlier debate, could have area committees in his constituency in Splott, Grangetown and other parts of Cardiff in the same way as there can now apparently be committees in Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and mid-Wales.

Mr. Michael: Or in Penarth.

Mr. Murphy: Indeed. Because the system has been born out of trying to make concessions, only parts of Wales will actually have the benefit—if that is what it is—of area committees. One cannot run a system of local government in Wales unless that system is applicable to all parts. It does not make sense, and it will lead to disharmony and administrative chaos as the years roll by.
The purpose of the Bill is to avoid having to come back here in 20 years' time, or whenever it might be, to change local government all over again. After all, it was just 21 years ago that the former Secretary of State of Wales, Lord Walker, was ultimately responsible for the system that is now disappearing. We may have to come back a damn sight earlier than that if the proposals are put into effect, because they simply will not work.
Look at the confusion behind the Minister's comments about finance. No Department, with all its experts—whether the Treasury, the Department of the Environment or the Welsh Office—could come up a solution to enable the over-complex system of local government finance to apply to area committees. The capping procedures are so complicated and standard spending assessments so difficult to understand that they simply cannot apply to area committees.
The Minister of State's answer on surcharge was totally inadequate. We cannot pass laws that mean that members of local authorities who become members of area committees and put up their hands to vote are not sure whether they will be liable to surcharge. Even worse, if those individuals are members of the parent authority, they may be made liable to surcharge when they have had nothing to do with the decisions of those area committees.
8.30 pm
When we debate Powys, the thrust of the discussion will be about accountability and bringing local government back to the people—certainly to those in mid-Wales, which seems to have been the birthplace of the stuff about area committees. The idea was to maintain community links and civic pride. One simply cannot get anyone in mid-Wales or anywhere else in the Principality enthused about civic pride via an area committee. One has to have a council, with a chairman or mayor, which is properly elected, because only those bodies can attract such civic pride, awareness and enthusiasm. An area committee, or whatever one may wish to call it, is not a council, which is what people require in mid-Wales.
For that reason, the first vote on new clause 11 was designed to give people in every part of Wales the opportunity to decide through a proper plebiscite whether they wanted the proposed new local authority for their area. That is the only way to do it. The only way in which permanence and stability can be given to local government is through the establishment of councils, proper statutory bodies, not the nonsense of area committees, which will satisfy no one. Such committees will not last two years should the Bill reach the statute book this year.
No mention has been made of a possible deadlock. When we discussed Government new clause 13, the Minister referred specifically to safeguards. We want not safeguards but assurances that when there is an irreversible deadlock between an area committee and its parent authority it will be broken. We want to know who will do that. Will it be the Secretary of State, the council itself or some other body such as the proposed new association? Who knows? It seems to me that the possibility of deadlock and conflict between those authorities is by no means remote. We were told that the whole purpose of the Bill was to remove the conflict, deadlock and disharmony that could exist between county councils and district councils.
There are ways to decentralise local government, but that is not what we have been offered. The Minister should consider what his Scottish colleagues have done. The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill offers workable, sensible decentralisation.
A number of Welsh local authorities have already set up administrative decentralisation schemes for housing and other responsibilities. Let us encourage that. No mention has been made of our community councils, which are properly elected bodies. They could be given more powers and finance to do what is suggested should be the responsibility of area committees. Far more sensible measures than the Bill could have been adopted.
Nothing has been done because the Government want to improve the system of local democracy, create a better one or improve administration. We were offered area committees simply because the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor and others wanted to have a different system of local government in mid-Wales. The Government would not agree with their proposals. Doubtless, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor will talk at length about Powys. The trouble with him is that he wanted it all his own way. He was willing to take all and give nothing. That is why the Minister cannot come up with a solution for mid-Wales. What we have been offered does not represent that solution, and it most certainly does not represent a proper system of local government throughout the Principality.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I shall have something further to say when we discuss the boundaries within Powys, but at this stage I shall confine my remarks to the proposals on area committees. If, as the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) suggested, those proposals were an attempt to pacify me, they have singularly failed, as he will well know.
Throughout our discussions, I have recognised that the Government have made a genuine attempt to create a system in which powers can be exercised at a local level. I have been pleased to see the flexibility that has been shown by the Government and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the many announcements about the functions to be delivered at local level.
As I made clear in Committee, I considered that it was one thing to create to create a system of local government in which we allowed functions to be devolved to area committees or shire committees, or even council committees. It is also important that we should have an accountable system of local government. The hon. Member for Torfaen spoke about accountability. To my mind, the crucial element of accountability is financial. It is for that reason that I have strongly pressed the case for allowing unitary authorities either to be set up within Powys or to establish area committees with real financial accountability. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his efforts to carry that further, but it would appear that he is unable to say anything positive in that regard today. I am bound to say, therefore, that the prescription that we are offered for area committees is flawed to that extent.
I am deeply concerned about the proposals that are contained in Government amendment No. 54, because the number of councillors who are required to trigger a request for a decentralisation scheme is to be raised from 10 to 15. In the House, we often discuss particular difficulties in our respective parts of Wales. Often, there is a degree of generosity between hon. Members, which is not always evident among those on the Front Benches. On many occasions, I have heard the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) talk about adult unemployment in his constituency. I appreciate that difficulty and I do not dismiss it. I have heard the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) also speak about similar difficulties. Whatever our political differences, those difficulties are faced by communities that we know.
In rural Wales, one of our problems is sparsity of population. That is understood even by some Opposition Members. Nowhere is that problem more starkly demonstrated than in the proposal to raise the number of councillors required to trigger a decentralisation scheme from 10 to 15. In the Government proposals for Powys, the number of councillors that they suggest should be elected to represent the whole of Radnorshire is 17. If one is to trigger a decentralisation scheme in Radnorshire, one would have to get 15 of the 17 councillors to approve of it. That proportion is not far short of 90 per cent.
In common with many others in the Chamber, I have been on the hustings in the past few weeks. I do not think any hon. Member present, even the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who may still be drunk with the excitement of his success last Thursday, if I can put it like that, would ever aspire to get a majority of 90 per cent. That is the target set to activate a decentralisation scheme in Radnorshire. I am bound to say that I doubt whether that would be achieved.
Of the other two authorities in Powys, 38 councillors are allowed for in Montgomeryshire under the guidance issued. Of those 38, 15 represents but 39 per cent. of those who are able to form a judgment. I am absolutely sure that, despite all the criticisms that have been made about area committees, Montgomeryshire and Breconshire will request a decentralisation scheme. Although 52 per cent. of the councillors would need to approve such a scheme in Breconshire, 90 per cent. of the councillors would need to approve one in Radnorshire.
How can such an operation work in practice? If a decentralisation scheme is approved in one part of Powys, and Radnorshire, for instance, cannot secure the 15 councillors required, who will make the local planning

decisions which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in Committee should be decided at a local level? His statement was very much welcomed in Radnorshire, where we have had a number of wind farm applications and people feel that Radnorshire should decide whether those applications should proceed. We foresee Montgomeryshire and Breconshire having a decentralisation scheme so that they can reach such judgments, yet the whole of Powys will decide what should happen in Radnorshire.
What is the answer to that problem? Unless we have the 15 councillors required, we shall not be entitled to apply for a decentralisation scheme under the Bill. That defeats the purpose of the exercise in which we have been engaged.

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is taking a somewhat depressing view of the position in Radnorshire. Given that all 17 councillors would be members of an area committee, would have been elected to represent that area and could be rejected by their electorate, I should have thought that they would all favour an area committee. Incidentally, we increased the figure from 10 to 15 councillors because, with the smaller number, a small, disgruntled group of 10 councillors might put forward an application for area committee status when they had nothing more than a difference with the major authority.

Mr. Evans: I do not make light of that difficulty. The concern has been expressed by some Opposition Members, many of whom believe in neither area committees nor decentralisation. The bottom line of concern here is the fact that mid-Wales does not have the population to reach the figures set in the Bill. We shall be disadvantaged by that. I suggest that, even at this late stage, a proportion of councillors would be a better option for areas with small populations than a requirement for a particular number of councillors.
On the first part of my right hon. Friend's intervention,. I know the mood in Radnorshire well. In Llandrindod Wells there is far more positive support for a centralised Powys authority; within the more rural part of Radnorshire, however, people feel that there should be a separate Radnorshire authority, so one should not presume that it will be easy to get 15 out of 17 councillors to vote for a decentralisation scheme. If it were that easy, the Government would be saying that every councillor within an area must approve every decentralisation scheme proposed. In essence, that is what the amendment asks of Radnorshire.

Mr. Wigley: The Dwyfor area could be in a similar position to Radnorshire. Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the possibility of a non-homogenous party political dimension? That may not be the case in Powys, which is largely independent, but those differences could exist in some areas. A small minority of councillors in one area might want to latch on to the larger proportion to which they belong in the overall authority and use that as a vested interest to block the creation of a district committee.

Mr. Evans: When we discussed those matters in Committee, I had more faith in the part of the Bill that allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide whether a decentralisation scheme should be approved. Some people resist granting such powers to a Secretary of State. But in the scenario outlined by the hon. Gentleman,


the Secretary of State's power would reassure me far more than racking up the requirement of the number of councillors that will trigger a decentralisation scheme. As a result of the amendment, it will be impossible for many areas of Wales to apply for a decentralisation scheme. I should prefer the requirement to be either to achieve a proportion of councillors within an area or to stick with the current trigger and then rely on the Secretary of State to decide whether a scheme should be approved.

Mr. Alex Carlile: To answer the Minister of State's direct question to me, I am content with the amendments on co-option. In so far as the decentralisation schemes will work, I hope that those co-options will contribute to that.
The Government amendments and new clauses on decentralisation schemes are extremely disappointing, particularly when set against the speech made in Committee on that subject by the Under-Secretary of State. Although the debate was somewhat confused on some legal issues, which remain unanswered, we had the impression that there was a real possibility that shire committees—as we thought they were to be called—would have certain powers relating to taxation. The Government seemed to be considering the possibility that shire committees would have precepting powers or something similar.
I appreciate that the Government are saying that, under the schemes, certain requirements set out are intended to ensure that the area committees have their own part of the unitary authority budget. It is regrettable, however, that there is no statutory guarantee that that will happen. I cannot accept that it was impossible for the Government to include in the Bill criteria applicable to all area committees which would ensure that they have some precepting powers and a legal status. I regret having to return to that point, but it is a key issue on the credibility of area committees.
Community councils have powers to take legal action in certain circumstances and in respect of certain liabilities. Although those powers are exercised through district councils, at least they exist. A community council can write cheques, enter into commitments and has all the trappings of a council. Indeed, it is a council. It can also own land; many community councils own cemeteries, which are often on large amounts of land. In Welshpool, for example, the community council—the town council —not only owns Welshpool town hall but used to own part of Smithfield, which is some of the most valuable land in the town. Welshpool town council has significant property ownership and property rights, and so it will remain.
The unitary authority will have the power to enter into contracts, to sue and be sued and to employ staff and contractors. It will have corporate status. We are told that area committees will have significant powers, but how can those powers have real meaning if the area committee must turn to the unitary authority whenever a decision is to be made involving spending or receiving money?
The car park hut is a good example. If the area committee decides to give a car park attendant a hut, I understand that it will not even be able to sign the cheque, and that the contract with the hut provider will have to be entered into by the unitary authority. In my constituency,

there happens to be a company, Presco, that makes prefabricated buildings and might well provide that car park hut, by bringing it down the road and dropping it off the back of one of its lorries as it trundles through town. However, Presco will have to send its invoice to the unitary authority and the area committee will have to ask the unitary authority to agree to pay those few hundred pounds in respect of that invoice.
What about more serious situations? Suppose that an employee—an officer of the council—whose functions are entirely in relation to the area committee, committed a serious act of negligence for which his employing authority was vicariously liable. It might be an act that was approved by the area committee but would not have been approved by the unitary authority had it been consulted, yet the unitary authority is to be held liable for it.
One can also imagine tremendous disputes between area committees and unitary authorities about planning decisions. Suppose that the area committee reaches a planning decision against which there is an appeal. The appeal is heard and the Welsh Office inspector finds against the authority and makes an order for substantial costs, running into tens of thousands of pounds. Is it right that the unitary authority should pick up the bill?

Mr. Rowlands: I have followed the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech closely. Given what the Minister said about the devolved responsibility in relation to share of revenue and block grants, does it not mean that the area committee will have to have an almost fully fledged finance department of its own to conduct those functions?

Mr. Carlile: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He made a significant contribution when we discussed those issues in Committee. I have to say, and I am sure that he shares my view, that none of our doubts has been resolved by what has been said today. The Government have fought and fought to avoid making the right decision, which was to create the unitary authorities in mid-Wales. For reasons that can be only political, they have decided not to do so, but, at the same time, they have managed to displease their own side. We are left with an extraordinary mess.
I suspect that I speak for councillors who are members of the existing Powys county council and for those who are members of the district councils when I tell the Minister of State that councillors in rural mid-Wales do not find it easy to understand the way in which those area committees will work.
Perhaps the Government would really like those area committees to wither on the vine. Here we come to Government amendment No. 54, on which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that we can be given the opportunity to vote separately at the appropriate time in our considerations tonight. Government amendment No. 54 was carefully avoided by the Minister of State when he introduced the group of amendments, but it is extremely important. In many ways, it is the most important part of the group. The fons et origo of an area committee is that resolution of councillors to have an area committee. For reasons that have not been explained by the Minister, he referred to some renegade councillors. I shall discuss that later.
It has been decided to increase by 50 per cent. the number of councillors who can ask for an area committee. The effect that that will have on old counties such as


Radnorshire has been graphically, adequately and fully explained by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). As for the renegade councillors, I thought that it had been repeatedly emphasised, both in the Bill and in discussions about the Bill, that it will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to allow a decentralisation scheme to proceed. If it is a renegade scheme, he will not allow it to proceed, so that disposes of the renegade councillors. It is no argument whatsoever for increasing the number from 10 to 15.
The Government have had years to think about that. Why were we not told in Committee that the Government thought that 10 was not the right number? Why should there be such a dramatic increase? If they want to increase it, why not to 12—a small increase which might cater more successfully for the type of situation that could confront us in Radnorshire?
The Minister is all too sanguine about what is likely to happen in Radnorshire. There are county councillors who honestly believe, and can express those beliefs well, that decentralisation schemes are a non-starter. They do not want them. Some of them are independent councillors and they are very independent-minded. If two of those councillors are elected to the new unitary authority to represent parts of Radnorshire, that is the end of Radnorshire as a decentralised area—and then what happens?
Is the Minister prepared to countenance planning decisions about wind farms for Radnorshire being taken by a planning committee that includes councillors from Montgomeryshire who may be feeling a little nervous about yet another wind farm being proposed for Montgomeryshire and who therefore decide, "Let's shove it over the border into the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor"? One can imagine Radnorshire being at the deepest possible disadvantage in that situation, in which, if the Minister's promises are delivered, Montgomeryshire councillors decide all types of things in their area committee and Breconshire county councillors decide matters in their area committee, but everything that happens in Radnorshire has to be decided by all the councillors from Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire and Breconshire.
Earlier in these debates, the Minister of State made an appeal to common sense. In relation to those decentralisation schemes, especially the proposal in Government amendment No. 54, I am afraid that common sense has taken to yogic flying. I ask the Minister of State and the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, to reconsider those proposals, especially Government amendment No. 54, once again. If they do not, we shall have the most unholy mess in mid-Wales, and probably in parts of north Wales, too.

Mr. David Hanson: Although the Minister of State has covered a number of the issues relating to decentralisation, many of us still support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). The decentralisation scheme in the Bill, and in the amendments which strengthen it, are not about decentralisation: they are a recipe for confusion and—despite what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said—for a continued opt-out by the sections of an authority that remain dissatisfied with an electoral result and with the services that the authority provides.

I am very worried about the negative way in which the Minister of State now intends to strengthen the area committees—a development which has occurred since the Committee stage. Throughout consideration of the Bill, the Government have maintained that they want to do away with a two-tier system of local government. Yet the establishment of area committees will continue to impose on ratepayers and service receivers of many Welsh authorities precisely that two-tier system. The proposals will continue the confusion of responsibilities as between the committees and the unitary authorities. There is still no clear separation of powers and responsibilities in the system.
9 pm
There will be unclear lines of accountability, too. There will be a patchwork of services in certain areas simply because people who are not satisfied with the composition of a unitary authority will opt out of it. I am not against decentralisation in principle; it is a sound idea. But the proposed system will ensure that dissatisfied councillors can appeal to the Secretary of State—originally 10 of them, now 15.
In an authority such as mine, the proposed Flintshire, a small number of councillors will be able to opt out, perhaps as soon as two or three weeks after an election for a shadow authority in which members of the authority were soundly defeated. Areas such as mine need cross-subsidisation between the industrial belt and the rural belt. But 15 out of 70 or so councillors in Flintshire, perhaps in part of the rural area, could opt out by applying to the Secretary of State for Wales, possibly taking with them a large part of a budget which is likely to have been generated by the whole borough. People throughout the borough have needs that should be met, and a small number of people representing only a small part of the borough should not be able to impede that.
Local accountability for the provision of services will not be clear. For instance, an area committee may be surcharged and all the members of the unitary authority may face a surcharge along with it. New clause 14 will make matters worse. The unitary authority will have little or no control over what the area committee does. The Government new clause states that a unitary authority
shall not, except with the agreement of the committee, abolish the committee or alter any arrangements in force with respect to the committee which were made in accordance with the scheme".
To all intents and purposes, then, the area committee will be a separate legal entity—but its actions can have an impact on members of a unitary authority, who might have to pick up the financial tab for actions taken by the area committee, even though the authority has no responsibility for the committee's actions—it has no influence over the committee at all.
In several areas, planning for one, a small number of councillors who have opted out of unitary authority control will be able to take decisions about important services. Do we want 15 out of 73 councillors to be able to blow holes in district plans long since agreed by the unitary authority, subject as those 15 will be to all sorts of local pressures? These planning matters will no doubt be important to the 15 local councillors, but they may have no relevance to the borough's strategic development plans in respect of education, rural areas and transport. That will clearly not be in the interests of the borough as a whole, yet the unitary authority will have no influence over what an area committee does.
There will also be a lack of co-ordination across a borough. In Flintshire, I want a coterminous unitary authority that acts in the interests of all its ratepayers, but that cannot happen as long as 15 Conservative, rural or Labour councillors can opt out and determine the priorities of their own area merely on the basis of what they think right for it. Why create a unitary authority system if one is to perpetuate, as the Minister is, that element of the two-tier system? There will be about 114,000 people living in my local authority. Why will 15 members be able to opt out and go their own way in a whole range of areas? That is not in the interests of the borough as a whole or of the people whom those 15 councillors represent. It is a recipe for confusion, lack of accountability, potential fraud, and for legal cases galore, which will keep many a lawyer in business for many years to come.
Although the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—perhaps even the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—would welcome that, at the end of the day, I feel that the system will not work. It will not deliver the services that people want. It will not provide a coherent strategy for a geographical area. It will not lead to effective Government. Surely the Bill is about effective Government.
I am concerned about co-option, which the Minister mentioned earlier and which features in the new clause. If we are to have co-option of individual members to a small local area committee, I should like to hear from the Minister a little more about the responsibilities of those individuals; for example, how they are accountable for the services, who they can be, and how they fit into local government. Under the provisions of the Bill as drafted, and with the proposed new clauses, individuals who, by providing themselves with a smaller area committee, effectively opt out of local authority control, can draw from that local area, not just other councillors, perhaps from outside the area, but individuals who are now co-opted, who are not in any way accountable to the services and to the ratepayers who are covered by that area committee, and yet are, perhaps, appointed by a small number of people as opposed to a large unitary authority as a whole.
What we are seeing is not decentralisation, but an opting-out of a wider view of local authority services, and with an area committee comprising a small number of councillors determining what they see as best for that small geographical area without a view to the needs of the unitary authority or the community as a whole. For those reasons, the Minister should go back to the drawing board, accept the amendments that have been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, withdraw the new clauses and let us have a decentralisation system that will work and is not a recipe for disaster.

Mr. Llwyd: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). By definition, there is a conflict between the members of an area committee and the full parent authority, because, clearly, they will wish to do the best for their district. In Committee, we heard the area committee being transformed into a shire committee, which was meant to lull us all into a false sense of security.

Mr. Rowlands: Pacify us.

Mr. Llwyd: I am reminded that the word "pacify" was used. It did not work. We were supposed to think that we were in line for something worth while, but when one looks

at what we are being offered, one sees that it is worthless. It is a half-baked, half-hearted idea, and is a good example of policy on the hoof.
I refer briefly to one or two assurances that were given by the Under-Secretary of State during the debates. He said:
The case has been made for shire committees to be responsible for a wide range of functions, much wider than those carried out by present district councils. Finance follows functions, of course …
For example, all the schemes for a particular authority might provide that a minimum of one third of the authority's budget should be delegated to the shire committee.
Later, he said:
It should be possible for schemes to establish arrangements whereby shire committees would have responsibility for administering supplementary credit approval-supported projects for functions which have been delegated to them and receive an agreed allocation of capital resources for functions delegated to them.
Finally, he said:
We are looking forward to the greatest practical level of decision-making by the shire committee. In line with the estimate that I have already given and leaving aside education, we foresee about 65 per cent. of the decisions on functions and finance being determined by the shire committee.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 May 1994; c. 384–86.]
Much of that now seems to have evaporated. Having heard the Minister of State open the debate, I am now less happy about those assurances than I was when I first heard them.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman. I listened carefully to his quotation from the speech made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in Committee; I repeated the greater part of that in the assurances that I gave earlier this evening.

Mr. Llwyd: If the Minister is in the mood to intervene, perhaps he will enlighten me on a certain point. Why has the number of councillors who would have to call for the area committee risen from 10 to 15? Will the Minister explain that again, briefly? Is there any other reason for it, apart from the "rogue councillor" idea, which I consider rather preposterous? If the Minister explained now, it might even shorten our proceedings.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have already explained. We want the applications for area committee status to be soundly based and to relate to local identity and community loyalty. We do not want the kind of development to which the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) referred, in which a group of councillors who are out of sympathy with the unitary authority say, "Let us break away and form an area committee." I believe that that is less likely to happen if the number is fixed at about 15.

Mr. Llwyd: With respect, I do not accept that argument for a moment. I think that there is a good deal of mischief behind the new clause. Meirionnydd's area committee is now likely to have 21 members, or possibly 22, 75 per cent. of whom will have to decide whether to move in. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) is faced with what is potentially an even more difficult problem: if one or two rogue councillors in Radnorshire decide that they do not want an area committee, they can dictate the position for the rest. That, surely, is not an exercise in good democratic practice.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman forgets that members of the area committee will also be members of


the unitary authority itself. They can have two for the price of one, as it were. I cannot imagine circumstances in which area members would refuse an area committee.

Mr. Llwyd: In that case, why are we arguing about figures? If no one is going to argue against the establishment of an area committee, why are we wasting good parliamentary time arguing about whether the figure should be 10 or 15? We are getting nowhere. It is like swimming in treacle.
I am dissatisfied with what the Minister has said. I think that the proposal is potentially mischievous; it will not help Brecon and Radnor, Dwyfor, Meirionnydd and various other parts of Wales. I have always thought that the legislative process is about making laws that will not be challenged day in, day out in constitutional courts and so forth. Here we have a potential problem that may blow up and— as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) suggested— prove to be a recipe for the whole idea to wither on the vine.
The hon. Member for Delyn made the general point that when we embarked on the Bill we were considering doing away with two-tier government, which allegedly caused confusion, complications, delay and unnecessary tension. In its stead, we are now creating a similar position involving much more confusion. We do not know what the precise legal position on contracts will be. I shall not go over the argument again, but we are even more confused now and I am sure that, regrettably, things will get worse.
In Committee, we called for clarification. Before it sat, I wrote to the Secretary of State about the matter, which was of personal interest. I still say that unitary status for Meirionnydd, Montgomery and Brecon and Radnor is the answer. The Government's attempt to head off the rebellion and pacify the people of mid-Wales is an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reaction. The people of mid-Wales will not be pacified by the Government's half-baked plan, and in making that point I am sure that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Clause 27 is a half-baked proposal. The Government have said that 95 per cent. of housing management must be put out to compulsory competitive tender. The guidance states that area committees will not be allowed to manage housing direct service organisations.
9.15 pm
Reference has been made to the Powys pudding. I presume that responsibility for social services will be divided between the two tiers— the unitary authority per se and the area committee. The committees, therefore, will be responsible for some services, but will have no control over financing, staff or property resources. If a committee is not a legal entity, it cannot be responsible directly for those matters. A service will not be delivered unless the committees are in control of such major responsibilities.
If area committees are established— if they are baked a little more in the oven— they will have a thankless job. Councillors will stand for election and will merely say, "I am sorry, but I am unable to produce that for you because of what the parent council said. It holds the purse strings; therefore, I am not in a position to deliver anything." I urge the Minister to think again. I always think that it is a gross mistake to introduce legislation that has inherent problems.
I have talked about whether area committees should have 10 or 15 members. I am still not persuaded and I urge the Minister to consider the matter again because it will undoubtedly cause problems in rural Wales.
The financial provisions should be strengthened. We have heard that various formulae will be used, but I am not sure what will ensue or whether the Secretary of State will approve any application. The conundrum that we are all in highlights the fact that, apart from Meirionnydd, the mid-Wales authorities, as approved in Committee, should be allowed to stand in their own right.
The Government are the authors of their own misfortune. I do not like to suggest that the legislation bodes ill, but I am certain that many problems will result throughout Wales because of the ill-thought-out way in which the proposals have been presented. Once more, I urge the Minister to apply some common sense to the situation and to allow Brecon and Radnor, Montgomery and Meirionnydd to have their richly deserved unitary status. The alternative is half-baked, will not work and is a Pandora's box.

Mr. Hain: I do not wish to offend the Minister because we are all quite fond of him really, but I must say that what we have witnessed is an extraordinary tour de force of fudging, fixing and fiddling: the more he spoke, the more contradictions emerged. He would have been better advised simply to read out the brief provided by his officials, keep his head down and not take any interventions because the more he elaborated, the more contradictions he uttered.
Let us consider the question of surcharging. If I have interpreted the Minister's comments correctly, it now seems that if, as the result of a decision taken by an area committee, a surcharge falls on the whole council, individual councillors are liable to be surcharged.

Sir Wyn Roberts: That is not the position that I outlined. The surcharge falls on the individual councillors involved in taking the decision, whatever it may have been.

Mr. Hain: Is the Minister saying that although the corporate body—the whole council—may be surcharged, individual councillors cannot be surcharged as a result of an area committee's decision? Will he confirm that definitely?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Clearly, cases have to be dealt with individually, but the fundamental principle of surcharging, in so far as it affects individual councillors, is that it is related directly to decisions that they have taken as individual councillors.

Hon. Members: Or failed to take.

Mr. Hain: Indeed. That is a grey area, but many other matters raised by the Minister are not at all grey.
What started off, in the Minister's notorious words, as an exercise in pacification has ended up as an exercise in obfuscation. We are recreating a two-tier system of government—precisely the system that the Bill was supposed to abolish. I am not a believer in reincarnation, but the Bill is simply an exercise in legislative reincarnation. Having been killed off, the two-tier system is now rising up in a different form.
Assuming that amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are accepted, one of the most obnoxious features of the Bill is that, on the whim of 15—previously 10—councillors, a


section of the council can effectively opt out. That will have the extremely deleterious effect of preventing local authorities—the new unitary authorities—from carrying out their functions and exercising democracy. Opting out and fragmentation will result in decisions that will negate the possibility of a strategic approach to policy and the ordering of priorities in the best interest of the public at large rather than that of particular sections of the community.
Subject to possible disciplinary action by my highers and betters on Labour's Front Bench, I must admit that I am inclined to accept amendments Nos. 54 and 55 on the basis that they appear to me to be wrecking amendments. It is unusual for the Government to table wrecking amendments to their own legislation, but to increase the number of councillors from 10 to 15 could severely injure the principle of the area committees, a point made by the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). I am therefore attracted to the amendments, and I hope that they are accepted. [Interruption.] It appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will let me off if I vote for them.
The Bill is illogical, especially in terms of the so-called decentralisation proposals. A better description would be "opting-out" proposals. Let us consider the contrast between education and social services policies and housing policies. In education, there will be one syllabus and one approach decided by the whole of a unitary authority, but it appears that the area committee can determine its own housing allocation priorities. That is illogical because, in principle, there is no difference between delivering housing and delivering education services.
Let us take the issue of planning. It seems extraordinary that an area committee could override or at least contradict the decision of a unitary authority in respect of planning. Consider a thorny local issue in Neath, for example—the question of secure accommodation for young offenders. In this case, West Glamorgan county council took the decision to site some young offenders' secure accommodation in the Neath area—a decision which I happen to support as the local Member of Parliament but which was met with fierce resistance from local people who felt that it was the wrong spot and who had many legitimate arguments. Is the Minister saying—this is my reading of the new clause—that the area committee could override a strategic decision to supply secure accommodation by refusing planning permission in that particular spot in the unitary authority? That is a classic example of the point that I am trying to illustrate. An overall policy with strategic implications not only for that area but, in this case, for the whole of south Wales, could be overridden by part of the authority, objecting to it simply on a parochial basis.
There are many other illogicalities and policy conflicts to which I could draw attention. However, in respect of Neath, Port Talbot and Lliw, without revisiting the arguments in principle about the boundaries of the new authority and whether they are appropriate—I believe that they are not—there will be severe tensions in the new unitary authority between upper Lliw, Neath and Port Talbot. A faction of dissident councillors—either in those areas on a united basis or in parts of those areas—who set

up an area authority and opted out, could severely disable the operation of the new authority. Given that the reorganisation is proceeding against local wishes—it is proceeding because the Government are forcing it through —the new unitary authority will have to establish a new basis on which to work together, new trust and a whole new approach towards getting together people who have previously been suspicious of and hostile to each other. Suddenly, the option of an area committee opting out will open up and that will be very dangerous.
The real aim of the new clause is to continue the process that the Government have embarked on and on which they have set their heart—the process of smashing local democracy. That is their task and their aim. They have an obsession with opting out which makes me believe that the real objective and the hidden agenda is to paralyse local government and the new unitary authorities. The Government already have powers to cap them. In some cases—such as that of the metropolitan authorities in England—the Government have abolished local councils because they were doing things to which they objected. They have further disabled local authorities through the processes of opting out, contracting out and the sale of council housing and by preventing them from building new homes. On top of that, they are seeking to fragment and hive off sections of the local authorities. It all adds up to a quite clear prescription for paralysing and disabling the operations of local democracy, especially where it is Labour local democracy and where local people are attempting to implement policies in accord with their wishes rather than the wishes of an extremely elitist, centralising central Government.

Mr. Ron Davies: The debate demonstrates the complete weakness of the Government's position on the Bill. It was absolutely clear in Committee—certainly all hon. Members who represent the Powys and mid-Wales area, including Meirionnydd, and all Opposition Members have made it clear—that the answer to the problem of mid-Wales is separate, unitary authorities for Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor and Meirionnydd. We have made that absolutely clear and we have voted for it consistently.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) did not vote with us and did not mobilise those Conservative Members, who we are told are malcontents and who are opposed to what the Government are doing and who, we are told—or at least as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor tells the press—are prepared to assist him in his project of destroying Powys. We had an opportunity to do that earlier. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor would have had that opportunity if he had mobilised his people and voted with us. We faced a majority of 31 against us. If the hon. Gentleman had managed to get 16 people to vote with him, he could have had what he wanted, and what we all wanted, which was the opportunity for democratic decisions to be taken by our local authorities. However, that did not happen.
As a consequence, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has missed out. He has missed the opportunity to have unitary authorities in mid-Wales and he also has a very poor compromise. The Government are insisting on the Powys model. In an attempt to offset the deficiencies in that model which the Government know exist, they have


now introduced the system of area committees to pacify, among other people, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor is now the biggest critic of the area committees. He has pointed out the deficiencies in the financial arrangements and in accountability between the principal council and the area committees. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out, with regard to planning, finance and decision making, the whole area is fraught with difficulties.
9.30 pm
I do not say this unkindly because I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was caught out a few times in Committee, but he was absolutely clueless. We asked him about accountability, the district auditor, the ombudsman and surcharge, but he did not have a clue. He promised to consider those points and to come back to us. He has come back in the form of the Minister of State, but the Minister of State has shed no light on those deliberations.
The Minister of State is at least as confused and unsure as the Under-Secretary was in Committee a couple of weeks ago. The Minister of State has been asked detailed, specific questions about what will happen and about the line of responsibility between the supposed area committees and the principal councils, but he has shed no light on that.
Our view is absolutely clear. The answer to the problem is to restore separate unitary authorities and to strike out all the provisions relating to area committees. That is what we voted for in Committee and that remains our position tonight.
The area committees do not resolve the Powys problem. Instead, they undermine what we are told is the central provision of the Bill—the creation of unitary authorities. The Government are undermining Powys. In their botched attempt to achieve a compromise, they are including a mischief in the Bill which could be used throughout the length and breadth of Wales to undermine and to destroy the principle of unitary authorities.

Mr. Rowlands: Is my hon. Friend clear whether the area committees would have to produce service delivery plans? If not, how will unitary authorities provide a service delivery plan when they will not have responsibility for the money or for delivering services in the area?

Mr. Davies: No doubt the Minister of State will shed his usual incisive light on that question. Although I may be paraphrasing in a pre-emptive way what the Minister of State is about to say, no doubt he will say that it is a matter for the principal councils. If an application is made and a scheme is put to him in which the question of service delivery plans is devolved to the area committees and he approves it, that must be a matter for the area committees. That would be the Minister of State's answer and that is the Government's position.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) would rightly point out, we are now being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We do not know what conditions, principles, values or attitudes will determine the Government's approval of the schemes which have yet to be prepared. That is the reality of the situation that we are facing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) suggested that we would take issue with him in respect of amendment No. 54. He said that he was tempted to support that amendment. Amendment No. 54 increases from 10 to 15 the number of councillors required to make an application for the establishment of an area committee. It is clear that the establishment of area committees is an arbitrary invention. The issue was completely mauled in Committee. However, I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Neath is tempted by amendment No. 54. It will make the establishment of area committees more difficult. However, if my hon. Friend votes for that amendment, he will endorse the principle of area committees. He will be saying that in some circumstances, albeit these circumstances as opposed to those circumstances, he is prepared to endorse the idea of area committees.
Having examined the matter at length, having considered it in Committee and having heard the debate this evening—the Government have had the opportunity to come up with the answers, but they have not come up with one—I am even more convinced that the appropriate thing for us now to do is to strike out the provisions.
I understand the difficulty that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is in. He regards area committees as perhaps an unacceptable palliative, but nevertheless, if that is all that is on offer, I presume that he wants it. Therefore, I can understand why he wants to oppose a measure which will make that more difficult. If he is minded to call a Division, I will not recommend that my hon. Friends support him.
Much as I sympathise with the hon. and learned Gentleman's position, I hope that he will understand that our position is quite clear: if we were to vote on amendment No. 54, either supporting it or opposing it, that would imply a degree of acceptance of the principle of area committees. We do not endorse the principle; we think that the whole thing is wrong. The appropriate course of action was to have agreed our amendment in Committee and entirely deleted clauses 27 and 28.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Very briefly, I am genuinely surprised at Opposition Members' view of area committees. After all, area committees are not dissimilar to committees of main authorities. We are very familiar with them; they include the education committees, planning committees and so on of main councils. Opposition Members know the answers to many of the difficulties that they anticipate, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) showed.
This is an attempt to try to meet the community loyalty and local identity that we know exist in many parts of Wales that cannot qualify for unitary authorities of their own. We would be very hesitant about that and about their strength to maintain those authorities. We have gone as far as we possibly can to ensure the delegation of powers. We have enabled such delegation to a far greater extent than is available under the present system, but, of course, much depends on the schemes that are worked out for the delegation of powers to area authorities.
I believe that the schemes and the proposition of area committees will be attractive not only in mid-Wales but in Camarthenshire, Caernarfonshire and Meirionnyddshire because they have the unique feature that they cannot be changed without their consent.

Mr. Alex Carlile: If it is the right hon. Gentleman's aim to ensure that there is as much local involvement as possible and that area committees should provide that, why is he not prepared to say, "Well, perhaps for certain areas, 15 members are too many," and that, therefore, on reflection, as long as 50 per cent. of the members representing that area request an area committee, a scheme will have to be prepared?
I do not think that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—I think that he agrees on this point —and I are asking very much when we request such a concession. Surely it is worth a final re-think on that basis if the right hon. Gentleman really wants areas such as Radnorshire to have an area committee.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and others are anticipating a difficulty that will not occur. If there are 17 councillors in Radnorshire—Radnorshire is the smallest area that I can think of where there might be an area committee—I cannot see that the proposition will not be attractive to all 17 councillors, bearing in mind that they are members of the unitary authority as well.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not want to make a speech; I simply want to elicit some information from the Minister. Earlier, I asked a simple question, to which I still have not received an answer. In clause 26 of the Bill, the unitary authorities are given a specific duty to prepare service delivery plans. How will they be able to prepare such plans when they will have neither the power nor the responsibility for delivering the services if area committees are established? Can the Minister explain how that will happen?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Obviously, in so far as the unitary authorities have delegated to an area committee, the area committee will take responsibility for meeting that part of the service delivery plan. There is nothing unusual in that. Currently, we have county committees which are part of the county authority, and there is collaboration between committees and the main authority. We anticipate that that will also occur where we have area committees of unitary authorities.

Mr. Rowlands: In clause 26, the draft proposals for service delivery plans must be prepared by November 1995 —unitary authorities will be putting out service delivery plans before the area committees have been established. They will offer to deliver services and subsequently find that they will not have the power or responsibility for delivering the service plans. They will not even have control over the money. How will that conundrum be solved?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I think that the hon. Gentleman well understands how it will be solved. In so far as the unitary authority delegates responsibility for the service delivery plan, the committee will be responsible for meeting the requirements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 15

AREA COMMITTEES: MEMBERSHIP ETC.

'.—(1) This section applies where an area committee has been established by a council in accordance with an approved decentralisation scheme.
(2) The provisions of the 1972 Act with respect to arrangements for the discharge of functions by committees of local authorities and sub-committees, and the appointment of such committees and sub-committees, shall be subject to this section and section (Sub-committees of area committees).
(3) Every person who is a member of the council for an electoral division which falls within the area for which the committee is established shall be entitled to be appointed to the committee at his request.
(4) The committee may appoint additional persons, including members of the council who are not entitled to membership of the committee under subsection (3), as members of the committee.
(5) No other persons shall be eligible for appointment to the committee.
(6) In this section, in relation to an area committee, "co-opted member" means any member appointed by the committee under subsection (4).
(7) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction under section 297 of the Education Act 1993 (power to direct appointment of members of certain committees) which applies to the committee and can only be complied with by the appointment of one or more additional members to the committee, it shall be the duty of the committee to exercise its powers of appointment to secure compliance with the direction.
(8) A co-opted member of an area committee shall not be entitled to vote at any meeting of the committee on any question which falls to be decided at that meeting.
(9) Nothing in subsection (8) shall prevent the appointment of a person, in compliance with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993, as a voting member of an area committee.
(10) In the application of section 101 of the 1972 Act (arrangement for discharge of functions by local authorities) in relation to the committee—

(a) subsection (1) shall have effect as if it gave power to the committee, if authorised to do so by the decentralisation scheme, to arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by a local authority other than the authority who made the scheme;
(b) subsection (2) shall have effect with the omission of the words "unless the local authority otherwise direct" and (in the second place where they occur) the words "the local authority or".

(11) Sections 102(3) of the 1972 Act (power to include persons who are not members of the local authority concerned) and 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance on committees) shall not apply in relation to membership of the committee.
(12) The term of office of each of the co-opted members of an area committee shall be fixed by the committee.
(13) Section 102(2) of the 1972 Act (number of members of committee and terms of office) shall not apply in relation to the committee.
(14) In the case of an appointment made in order to comply with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993, the committee shall exercise its powers under subsection (12) subject to any provision of the direction relating to terms of office.'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 18

SUB-COMMITTEES OF AREA COMMITTEES

'.—(1) In this section "sub-committee" means a sub-committee of an area committee.
(2) The members of a sub-committee shall be appointed by the 'area committee from among persons who are—

(a) members of the area committee appointed under subsection (3) of section (Area committees: membership etc.); or
(b) entitled to be members of the area committee by virtue of that subsection.



(3) Subject to subsection (10), a sub-committee may appoint additional persons, including persons who are not members of the area committee concerned, as members of the sub-committee.
(4) No other persons shall be eligible for appointment to a sub-committee.
(5) In this section, in relation to a sub-committee, "co-opted member" means any member of the sub-committee appointed under subsection (3).
(6) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction under section 297 of the Education Act 1993 (power to direct appointment of members of certain committees) which applies to a sub-committee, it shall be the duty of the area committee concerned and the sub-committee to secure compliance with the direction.
(7) A co-opted member of a sub-committee shall not be entitled to vote at any meeting of the sub-committee on any question which falls to be decided at that meeting.
(8) Nothing in subsection (7) shall prevent the appointment of a person in compliance with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993 as a voting member of a sub-committee.
(9) Sections 102(3) of the 1972 Act (power to include persons who are not members of the local authority concerned) and 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance on committees) shall not apply in relation to membership of a sub-committee.
(10) The number of members of a sub-committee and their terms of office shall be fixed by the area committee concerned.
(11) Section 102(2) of the 1972 Act (number of members of committee and terms of office) shall not apply in relation to the sub-committee.
(12) In the case of an appointment made in order to comply with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993, the area committee shall exercise its powers under subsection (10) subject to any provision of the direction relating to terms of office.'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

FINANCING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN WALES

`.—The Secretary of State, after consulting the Treasury, shall within six months of this Act coming into force present a report to Parliament on methods to restructure the financing of local government in Wales; such report shall include consideration of—

(a) the feasibility of local government raising a local income tax, or receiving a proportion of the VAT and corporation tax arising from businesses within their area;
(b) a tax placed upon second homes in Wales, the proceeds of which shall accrue to local government; and
(c) the abolition of council tax and the uniform business rate. '.—[Mr. Wigley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 6 deals with an essential aspect of local government: finance. I tabled the new clause very much as a probing new clause because in our discussions so far on the Bill we feel that the question of financing local government in Wales has not been adequately dealt with.
As hon. Members will see, under new clause 6 the Secretary of State would, within six months of the Act coming into force, report to Parliament on methods of restructuring the financing of local government in Wales. The new clause looks specifically at three aspects: first, the possibility of raising a local income tax and taking a proportion of value added tax or corporation tax within Wales; secondly, a levy on second homes; thirdly, the abolition of council tax and the uniform business rate.
I do not apologise for pressing this matter at this stage, because I had thought that we might be moving towards coherent consideration of local government financing as well as structures when on 5 December 1990 the then

Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement to the House and mentioned doing away with the hated poll tax. He made it clear when discussing that tax that he believed that there was an argument for considering the structures of local government along with its financing, which appealed to us very much.
Back in the 1970s, we gave some substantive evidence to the Layfield committee when it considered the financing of local government. In paragraph 3 of our evidence, we stated that finance should not be
considered in isolation from local government boundary structures or functions … we believe all these aspects of local government to be interdependent.
We warmly welcomed the Government's comment in 1990 that they were considering finance and intended to consider structures and functions at the same time.
9.45 pm
Thinking back to Layfield in the mid-1970s, it is worth noting that the committee came out in favour of a local income tax. On page 281 of its report, it stated that local income tax
is a feasible source of local revenue for non-metropolitan counties, metropolitan districts, Scottish regions and islands authorities, and possible London boroughs.
If that was possible in the 1970s, how much more practical and possible is that source of finance for local government now, with the move to the computerisation of so much information? If the argument was valid then, it is even more valid now.
Let us consider the pattern in other countries. Many of them source a good proportion of local government revenue from taxation on income and profits. In Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany and Belgium, more than 80 per cent. of local authority income comes from taxation on income and profits. My figures are from the late 1980s and may have changed a little during the past few years. That is a far more acceptable means of raising income for local government as it is more progressive.
We all know about the anomalies of the council tax system. It may not be so bad as the poll tax system, but it contains serious anomalies and causes serious hardship. To make the system in any way acceptable, the Government have had to move more and more to financing local government in Wales from the central Exchequer so that only a small proportion of Welsh local government income comes from its variable, independent source of finance—the council tax. I shall give the figures in a moment.
The freedom of local government is eroded if it does not have the financial freedoms and responsibilities which go hand in hand. One of the problems is that if one moves to a system where up to 90 per cent. of local authority income comes from a central Exchequer by way of rate support grant, revenue support grant, or whatever the terminology may be at the time, it enables central Government to put stringent conditions on the money which goes to local government and necessarily takes away its freedom.
Our new clause, which ensures that the Secretary of State will report on other possibilities, suggests that a certain proportion of the value added tax raised in Wales should go, as of right, to Welsh local authorities. After all, the tax is highly geographically definable because it arises at a certain point which, in computer terms, can be cross-coded to postcodes and easily identified with local authority areas. Of the 17.5 per cent. raised in VAT, a certain proportion—perhaps 3 percentage points—should


go automatically to local authorities. Likewise, a proportion of corporation tax—10 per cent., or whatever —should go to local authorities.
By ensuring that those proportions of central taxation go to authorities as of right, and by ensuring flexibility in local income tax, we could do away with the council tax and the uniform business rate. There is no doubt that the uniform business rate is a severe burden. It is an overhead which in times of recession can pull down businesses which would otherwise be viable. It is a fixed cost, whereas a proportion of corporation tax—or, if it is a non-incorporated business, a local income tax—is variable with income, so if income goes down it is not a fixed cost which pulls down the whole viability of the business. I believe that those questions deserve attention and that attention should be in the context of the structures, boundaries and functions of local government.
I mentioned the dependence in Wales on grants from the central Exchequer. I shall look next at the council tax as a proportion of the total income of local authorities in 1993–94. We must bear in mind the fact that the council tax is the only independent income that we have of any significance. There may be sundry and miscellaneous incomes, but those are usually very small.
In Mid Glamorgan, the council tax represents only 9.5 per cent. of the total income of the authority. In other words, 90.5 per cent. comes from sources outside that authority, and the freedom of that authority has been severely eroded. The figure in Powys is 12 per cent, in Gwynedd 14 per cent., in Dyfed 14.4 per cent. and in Clwyd 15.2 per cent. The average for all Welsh counties is 12.5 per cent.
With districts, the position is even more grotesque. In the Rhondda, the value of the council tax as a proportion of total income is 5.3 per cent., which means that some 94.7 per cent. comes from other sources. We cannot have genuine local freedom in local government when the variable proportion of the income is greatly limited.
As for the overall position in Wales, the total 1993–94 figures of all incomes for district and counties in Wales combined is £2,452 million, of which the council tax provides £297 million. That emphasises the point.
If 3p of the 17.5p in the pound of VAT came as a right to local government, it would generate about £300 million in Wales. If 10 per cent. of corporation tax came through to local government, it would generate £100 million. A local income tax of something like 4p in the pound—that would be the variable element, because the other two are parts of central Government taxation, although we feel that they should accrue to local government—would generate £400 million. That would give something like £800 million as of right, compared with the figure of just under £300 million which we are talking about now.
That £800 million would be unfettered income and would not be subject to the stringent controls which inevitably must come from a Government who have the opportunity to put conditions on the grants that they pass out. Such considerations should be taken on board at this stage. I believe that it is irresponsible for us to be setting up structures and functions of local government without looking at the finances.
If local government is to provide genuine local democracy, it must have the responsibility and the freedom to undertake policies in line with the needs of any area. Clearly, there are poor areas in Wales and there must be an equalisation function coming through from the central

Exchequer, via the Welsh Office. I accept that any variable independent sources of that kind would probably never be more than 30 to 40 per cent. because of the importance of maintaining standards in areas of deprivation.
In allocating grants to areas, there needs also to be a close scrutiny of what criteria are used and what considerations come into play for the allocation to meet the local circumstances. For example, there clearly has to be consideration of deprivation, sparsity and demographic factors in any area and these possibly need to be fine tuned. We are always playing with them, and they are complex in the model that we have at present, but something needs to be done to make sure that money is going by way of equalisation to the areas that really need it, and that areas generally have much greater freedom with regard to their finance.
In moving the new clause and in calling for a report, we are in no way undermining the Bill. The suggested time scale to assemble thinking on the restructuring of local government finance is not unreasonable. If we do not provide for such a rethink in the Bill, the Government will have no other chance to reconsider in depth local government finance in Wales. Given the nature of the Bill, and at this stage in its proceedings, I realise that we cannot do any more than I have suggested, but my suggestion is well worth consideration. The relevance of such a report goes beyond Wales, but it should certainly be considered in the context of Wales.
Given the spirit in which I have introduced the new clause, I hope that the Government will be prepared to take on board my suggestions and will find some positive way to respond.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has rightly raised the issue of local government finance, which was dealt with rather perfunctorily on Second Reading, in Committee, and now on Report.
The new clause presents the Government with an opportunity to reconsider some of the anomalies of the local government finance system. They should consider returning the business rate to local authorities, and in the short term they should certainly examine the number of bands in the council tax. They should, unquestionably, reform the system of standard spending assessments to make them more intelligible. They should also abolish the capping of local government.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer one specific question about local government finance. It arises from a written answer from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment published in Hansard today. It refers to the remuneration of members of local authorities. We should consider capping in conjunction with the remuneration of councillors. I understand that a letter has been sent to all the local authority associations asking for their views on the Government's proposal to change the way in which members of local authorities are remunerated—and about time, too.
The Labour party entirely agrees with making a change for the better because many people are discouraged from 'being local authority members because of the appalling remuneration that they receive. If the proposed change means, however, that a local authority has to pay every single penny of the remuneration, that could mean that it is penalised under the capping regime.
Does the consultation process on remuneration apply to Wales, bearing in mind that we are in the middle of a reorganisation? What are the Minister's views about the possibility of capping as a result of the remuneration of councillors under the new proposed regime?

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Other than under a deeply philosophic guise, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that this is the right time to introduce a report on the restructuring of local government finance, even if it is designed only to initiate the first stage of such a review. As the hon. Member knows, we are not proposing any changes to local government finance in the Bill. The arrangements will continue unchanged from the current councils to the new ones. I therefore do not think that it is appropriate to pursue this probing new clause and I suggest that the House should not accept it.
I should like to take the opportunity to say that I believe that the council tax has been well accepted by the council tax payers of Wales. It combines fairness with simplicity of administration and it overcomes those aspects of the rates and the community charge that were most criticised. It achieves accountability through a clear link between what councils spend and what local residents pay. In turn, under the uniform business rate, businesses benefit from certainty and stability. Increases in the poundage cannot exceed the increase in the retail prices index and businesses pay rates on a common basis. That has been a great step forward and underlines the desirability of making no change to local government finance.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) asked about consultation and capping. I believe that the consultation exercise would give him the opportunity to pursue his questions. We look forward to studying the hon. Gentleman's detailed views on all those points, which will be taken fully into account when we consider the matter.

Mr. Murphy: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Local government in Wales needs an answer on what the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said today. Does that consultation process now apply in Wales? Given that local government is in the process of reform, will our Welsh associations be asked specifically for their comments, and will whatever occurs in England in terms of remuneration of councillors apply also to Wales?

Mr. Jones: Yes, it certainly will. I look forward to hearing the views of the on those important matters

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the debate be resumed tomorrow—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Defective Medical Devices

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

10 pm

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: This debate is about medical devices such as artificial heart valves and pacemakers, which are life saving and enhance and prolong the lives of thousands of our constituents. One would think, then, that the debate would be about how wonderful those devices are and how we should praise the manufacturers for producing such excellent instruments of health. But it is not, because, tragically, some of those devices go wrong and, as a result of their failure, people die.
The debate is about what we do when those devices fail and how we react to the inevitability that mechanical devices are not, and cannot be, perfect. How we stop them failing is for the technicians and scientists in the laboratories of the manufacturers, universities and research establishments. We should consider what we do when they fail and how we ensure that as little damage as possible is done.
On 24 April last year, my constituent, Mrs. Marian Sheedy, died. The death certificate recorded that she died of cardiac failure, renal failure and mitral valve disease. It did not record that she wore a pacemaker, nor that a year earlier, according to medical notes that I have seen, the pacing wire of that pacemaker appeared to malfunction. At the time of her death, no reference seemed to be made to the role of the pacemaker. It was as if it could have played no part in determining whether she would live or die.
Although nothing can bring Mrs. Sheedy back, her husband, John, is determined that everyone who wears a pacemaker or other device to help him or her live a more active life should be absolutely confident that the devices are of the highest quality, and have been thoroughly checked and monitored, and that the Department of Health has a duty to ensure that that happens.
When Mr. Sheedy came to my surgery to raise his concerns about what was happening, I knew nothing about pacemakers or about the Medical Devices Directorate, which is supposed to monitor the use of pacemakers, artificial heart valves and the like. I was no more a medical or technical expert than I was an expert in Mandarin Chinese. However, Mr. Sheedy had looked after his wife for many years and learned a great deal about pacemakers and their development. Before long, he had explained to me the basis on which they worked. I also knew that a number of manufacturers sold their products to the national health service. The pacemaker lead implanted in Mrs. Sheedy in 1987 was a Siemens type 93.
Mr. Sheedy had written to Siemens after his wife's death, asking about the lead. He discovered that Siemens had issued a warning to the Department of Health in February 1993, some two months before his wife died. It had also warned all the pacing clinicians of which it was aware. I say, "of which it was aware", because, as a result of an answer that I received from the Minister, I believe that not all pacing clinics are listed with the Medical Devices Directorate, the organisation responsible for issuing warnings.
As a result of Mr. Sheedy's investigations, I followed up with questions in the House, which have led me to believe that there is a yawning gap in the communications


system between the Department, hospitals and, most importantly, patients. I want that gap to be closed. I want to be assured that when things go wrong, patients are seen as quickly as possible and doctors know what they are looking for and how to fix it.
There are a number of players in the debate. There are the patients and their families, who have been told little or nothing about the devices implanted in them. There are the manufacturers, whose aim must be profit and whose trials and warnings with regard to their products seem to be under little or no scrutiny. There are the national pacemaker database and the national pacemaker registry, which are supposed to be recording the patients, devices, deaths and other important data, but are of little or no use to us because their records are so inaccurate. There is the Department of Health, which, through the Medical Devices Directorate, is supposed to assess the effects of faults in medical devices, investigate incidents and issue warnings, but which, in reality, has little or no power to do anything about it. I want to discuss each in turn, but I shall leave the patients and their families to the end because, to me, they are the most important players of all.
According to the national pacemaker database, there are 12 manufacturers of pacemakers currently selling in Britain, and 10 such manufacturers of artificial heart valves. The House might be surprised to know that there is no guarantee whatsoever that those are the only manufacturers of such devices operating here. Indeed, we have no way of knowing whether other manufacturers are also selling to hospitals and clinics throughout the country.
That is frightening. That devices which have to be, by their very nature, extremely sensitive, costly and for life-saving purposes, can be sold to hospitals without any scrutiny by any organisation, especially the Department of Health, is, I believe, a scandal. Why is that the case? The Minister tells me that it is because the Department will not make any rules about purchasing of medical implants, but simply says that it will
strongly recommend purchasers to buy devices only from companies registered under the Department's Registration Scheme.
Those of us who are worried about the national health service being finance-led can only speculate that purchasers might go for the cheapest option, rather than check that a manufacturer is registered with the Department, although being registered in itself is not a guarantee that the Department has checked the approved device. Surely it is not beyond the Department of Health's remit to say that such devices must be bought only from the manufacturers on the list. Of course, that would also mean that the onus would be on the Department to ensure that a manufacturer gets on the list only if he has a proven record of quality, expertise and response. I hope that when the Minister responds he can assure the House that the manufacturers about whom we know are all registered under his scheme.
In Mrs. Sheedy's case, Siemens issued a warning in January 1993, which reached the directorate in early February. It, in turn, informed pacing clinics later that month. I make no great issue of the delay in informing clinics, but I should have thought that when a company issues a warning about its own products there can be no reasonable excuse for hanging on, thinking about it and

eventually deciding to do something. I hope that the Minister will ensure that in future there is no delay between the receipt of a warning and passing it on.
As it happened, Siemens also warned the purchasers of the devices themselves. One would think that that would have covered everyone, but it does not, because a patient may be fitted with a device in one hospital but may return to a different hospital for follow-up work. At the moment, there is simply no way for Siemens or any other manufacturer to know where patients are being seen. That problem must be tackled, especially as the responsibility is now on manufacturers to inform the Department of any deaths or injuries resulting from faults in their products.
Let me illustrate that with two examples. Mrs. Sheedy was fitted with her pacemaker at King's hospital. It was then suggested that she have her pacing follow-up at Lewisham hospital, our local hospital. When I asked the Minister for names of pacing and pacing follow-up centres, the reply did not include Lewisham hospital. Last week, I noticed that Victoria infirmary in Glasgow was not on the list, so I phoned it up. I asked whether it fitted pacemakers or did follow-up work. The coronary heart unit staff there informed me that they did do follow-up pacing work. They were not on the list. Did they know of Siemens' warning? I doubt it.
The Minister will say that those hospitals are not on the list because informing the database is a voluntary exercise, but that is exactly my argument. That is the gap which I mentioned when I began this debate. Such information must be available to the database by compulsion if it is to be of any use at all. No one in the House or outside can say with absolute confidence that patients have not died as a result of follow-up clinics being unaware of warnings and thus not having acted on them.
In another reply, the Minister said that it was the responsibility of the manufacturers to advise users and purchasers when faults became apparent. Siemens certainly informed the purchasers, but it was impossible for the company to inform users. One of the main thrusts of my argument is that the users, the patients, have the right to know. I believe that some manufacturers might be disinclined to tell them; even Siemens is unhappy that I should be raising the issue because it has said that a media scare campaign would cause stress and concern for others. But the matter is too important to the 80,000 people in Britain who are fitted with pacemakers, and to their families and friends, for them not be kept fully informed of developments.
I want to refer briefly to another device—the artificial heart valve—and in particular to the Bjork-Shiley valve and the case of Mrs. Pauline Judge from West Bromwich. She would be the same age as me, 41, if she were alive. She died in September last year. In 1982, she was fitted with a valve and recovered quite well from the operation, resuming an active life even to the point of going swimming and taking aquarobic classes. She had even begun a business administration class through employment training.
In April 1993, however, Mrs. Judge's health deteriorated—she became dizzy, and so on. On Wednesday 1 September, she was in terrible pain and was vomiting. Her husband Eddie listened for the valve, which gives off a particular sound, and realised it was not working. I shall not go into the details of the tragic minutes that followed,


except to say that Mrs. Judge was in the most awful pain and distress, while her husband did all he could to care for her.
What followed was one of the most tragic episodes I have ever had the misfortune to read. Mr. Judge pleaded with nurses, ambulance staff and doctors, explaining what was wrong with his wife, but to no avail. He knew what was wrong, but no one at the hospital appeared to understand the need to get his wife to a hospital with the facilities to care for her. She died at 1.15 am. Mr. Judge and his family believe that his wife's death was avoidable.
Between 1980 and 1983, the Bjork-Shiley valve was recalled three times in the United States because of fractures. In 1985, large valves were withdrawn, and in 1986 finally removed from the market. When the Food and Drug Administration in the United States became aware of the fractures, it first suspended and then revoked export approval for the 70 deg. valve. There is, however, every reason to believe that Bjork-Shiley aggressively marketed the valve abroad, in places such as Britain, during the suspension period. The FDA withdrew export approval in May 1983, yet the Minister tells me that the first departmental record indicating the suspension and subsequent withdrawal of the export permission is dated 15 January 1985, two years after the first suspension.
The phraseology of the Minister's reply leads me to suspect a lack of effort by the Department to find out exactly what was going on with the device in question. That is why I think it is time the Department's relationship with the FDA was put on a more formal footing. There must be more direct and detailed discussions about medical devices and their impact. Then, people such as Pauline Judge might have the opportunity to be seen by a specialist and have a fatal valve replaced.
The last thing I want to say on behalf of the Judge family is that they are still awaiting the coroner's verdict on Pauline's death. I understand the delay is due to waiting for reports of evidence. I feel that the Minister should use his offices, if appropriate, to ensure that the inquest goes ahead as speedily as possible for the sake of the Judge family.
The national pacemaker database and registry are purely voluntary institutions. It is entirely up to hospitals and pacing follow-up clinics to let them know who has a pacemaker and how it is functioning. I believe that the figures that the Department has given me are woeful underestimates of the number of pacemakers in use. How, then, can the Department feel sure that it knows what is going on, or that it can seriously monitor the effectiveness of the devices?
I draw a comparison here with the system set up to approve and monitor new drugs. A study by Social Audit in 1992 suggested that the level of serious injury for newly prescribed drugs was seriously underestimated. Among the reasons for that were the excessive secrecy of manufacturers and the voluntary nature of reporting of side-effects by doctors. The comparison is apt. It is absolutely essential that the use and effectiveness of those devices is carefully and properly monitored and that when anything goes wrong, as it inevitably will, there is no delay between warning and caring for the patient concerned.
It has been suggested to me that the debate and the raising of these issues will scare patients and their families unnecessarily. I think that that is a cop-out put forward by those who do not want patients to know what is going on, or who are not prepared to take responsibility for what is

happening. In the course of my learning about medical devices, I have been contacted by a number of families of patients from around the country. Every one of them says, "We have the right to know."
I do not for one moment think that this will scare patients. We are talking about people who have had serious heart conditions which have been controlled by such devices. They are all too well aware of their conditions, and their families monitor and care for them, sometimes for many years. They are not people who do not know and understand what is wrong with them. They are entitled to know how the device that is implanted in them is functioning. If it stops functioning, they are entitled to be assured that it will be dealt with as speedily as possible, so that they may go on enjoying their lives. That is not a lot to ask for.
Let me touch briefly on the views of Mrs. Delonnette of Hastings, whose husband's had a Bjork-Shiley implant. She says:
I myself feel that if I had known about it, I may have been able to have something done about it sooner, and maybe he would have been saved from such a tragic death.
Then there is Mrs. McGregor of Bradford, whose husband had a Siemens lead, which rusted inside him, and who now can no longer speak or care for himself and needs to be nursed by Mrs. McGregor 24 hours a day. She says:
On behalf of those involved in this issue may I offer my husband's and my support in bringing this matter to the full glare of the media.
Then there is Mr. Edghill from Maidstone, who, by happy chance, discovered from my constituent, Mr. Sheerly, that he had problems on his electrocardiogram and that he should have his pacemaker checked. As a result of that check, it was replaced two weeks later. He said:
I consider that this situation should never have occurred, and it is plain to me that the explanations given to date need to be brought to the notice of the public.
Or there is Mrs. Earle, another of my constituents, who had a pacemaker fitted six years ago, and who recently found that she was getting breathless. Her GP arranged for her to go into hospital and have it replaced, where she was asked by the cardiologist why she had not been in before. She had to inform him that she had never had her pacemaker monitored in the six years since it was implanted. Surely that is an indication of the terrible lapse in the proper recall of patients in such situations.
Only today, I received a letter from Mr. Bates, also from Hastings, whose pacemaker was fitted in October 1992. It was also a Siemens. It punctured his lung, and he was hospitalised again. Until August last year, he continued to have problems with it. It was not until October 1993 that the matter was finally sorted out. He said:
At the time of my pacemaker implant, I was not warned … of any risk involved with either the implantation process itself … or the device itself.
I am aged 44, quite a young age to have a pacemaker inserted, and may need to rely on it for another 40 years or more. If some of the problems mentioned on the programme begin to happen, will I necessarily know about them?
What technical information is available to patients like myself about the pacemaker and leads which I have inside me?
I fully support your call for adequate information, research and 'monitoring of pacemaker implants".
The database is inaccurate. It needs to be made accurate. The registry is not up to date; it needs to be. The Department of Health, through the Medical Devices Directorate, is supposed to monitor the effects of devices.


It cannot do so properly in the present circumstances. It simply does not know what is going on and, even if it did, it has no power to do anything about it.
I put it to the Minister that here is an opportunity to fulfil the principles of the patients charter. It is an opportunity to ensure that no one suffers the pain and loss suffered by my constituents and the others whom I have mentioned, without full knowledge of the effect that artificial devices have, their safety record, the manufacturers' commitment to the highest quality, and with the most detailed monitoring of the effectiveness of such devices.
Tonight, the Minister can begin to give hope and reassurance to the 80,000 people with pacemakers in this country, and to the 5,000-plus with artificial heart valves and other devices. He can say that the Medical Devices Directorate will scrutinise every manufacturer of devices for safety, quality and history follow-up and response. He can say that it will work in a formal and productive programme with the FDA, exchanging information as soon as it is known and acting on it. He can say that the directorate will issue warnings to hospitals, follow-up clinics and GPs when that is necessary, and will check that every hospital has acted on those warnings. He can say that he will ensure that the database is up to date, because pacing centres will be obliged to forward information identifying each patient with his or her unique pacemaker number. He can warn patients, as well as hospitals and GPs, so that they know what is going on.
By so doing, the Minister will ensure that he enhances the quality and length of thousands of people's lives. I plead with him to do so.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I can accede to nearly all the requests and recommendations of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice). We do precisely what she suggested. Although she has criticised the way in which we do it, we are on the same side in trying to ensure that devices are monitored and any problems are brought to the attention of the right people.
The hon. Lady has engaged in a good deal of correspondence with the Department of Health by means of parliamentary questions. I applaud the methodical way in which she has gone into the matter, on behalf of her constituent and the constituents of other hon. Members. I certainly would not characterise what she has done as alarmist; it is very proper to discuss how we can perfect a system of trying to monitor the complicated network of devices that the health service currently uses.
Let me say how sorry I am about what has happened to the Sheedy and Judge families. These are great tragedies. I accept what the hon. Lady said about holding an inquest; I shall look into the matter, and get back to her.
On the whole, people pay little attention to the safety of medical devices until something goes wrong. The hon. Lady was honest enough to say that she did not know much about the Medical Devices Directorate, which is probably one of the foremost such organisations in the world and which we are lucky enough to have in our health service. For example, a pacemaker registry has existed since 1972, funded by the Department since 1977; a heart valve

registry has existed since 1985, a breast implant registry since 1993 and a hydrocephalus shunt registry since earlier this year.
The expectation of both health service staff and patients is that medical devices are safe, and the Department of Health puts a great deal of effort into ensuring that they are. Every year, new medical devices and equipment become available that offer improvements in the treatment and care of patients; but new technology brings with it potential hazards that need to be carefully assessed.
The Medical Devices Directorate, within the Department, comprises a wide range of professional and technical experts with extensive experience in medical devices. It is responsible for ensuring that medical devices used by the health service are safe and effective. It discharges that responsibility in four main ways—by being closely involved in the drafting of legislation and safety standards that will form a framework for the control of devices into the 21st century, particularly in a European context; by operating a registration scheme; by managing a programme to evaluate the technical and clinical performance of medical devices; and by assessing adverse incidents associated with those devices, reported by manufacturers and health care users.
The last of those is the most important in the context of the issue raised by the hon. Lady. The investigation of adverse incidents is critical in ensuring the safety of medical devices. We have issued a number of guidance notes to health service chief executives to encourage the reporting of such incidents, and we shall continue to press for it. The reporting of serious incidents by manufacturers is becoming mandatory under EC directives, as the hon. Lady probably knows.
The MDD handles well over 3,000 reports each year, using its scientific, technical and clinical experts—who take advice, where necessary, from relevant specialists in academia, the health service and industry. Where a risk to the safety of patients or users has been identified, advice is issued, in the form of a safety warning, to health service staff. This advice will take into account the nature and use of the device, the likelihood and severity of patient injury and the consequences of any action taken. This may result in the modification of a device, or sometimes its withdrawal from use.
Departmental safety warnings may take the form of hazards notices, safety action bulletins, pacemaker technical notes or direct correspondence from the Chief Medical Officer or other professionals in the Department. Since 1991, 85 hazard notices, 183 safety action bulletins and 18 pacemaker technical notes have been issued.
I mention that because I should like to refute one of the hon. Lady's more exaggerated statements—that the Department does not know what is going on. We closely follow what is happening with medical devices. She has criticised our means of doing so, but we do much monitoring work and will continue to do so.
Responsibility for ensuring that action is taken in response to safety advice issued by the MDD rests with health services— the specialists. It is the responsibility of chief executives to have a policy in place for the dissemination of information contained in advisory notices to the relevant health care professionals. The nature of the action taken in relation to patient management in the light of such information must, however, remain a matter for the judgment of doctors to whom that advice is issued. In all cases, clinical judgment must be exercised in weighing the


risk of potential failure of a device against a patient's condition and the additional risks that may result should further surgical intervention be necessary. Such judgment must be made with a full knowledge of the individual circumstances of each patient. It is the clinician who takes responsibility for ensuring that patients receive suitable advice without generating needless anxiety.
Since the action to be taken as a result of safety warnings is a matter for the clinical judgment of a patient's doctor, advice from the Department of Health is issued only to clinicians. The advice is often rather complex and technical—I do not think that it is patronising to patients to say that—and the action taken invariably depends on the particular circumstances of the patient. It is therefore inappropriate for such advice to be given outside the context of a clinician-patient consultation.
I know that the hon. Lady's particular interest is in the reliability of certain pacemaker leads manufactured by Siemens. In the particular case of the Siemens leads, a thorough consideration of clinical and technical issues was undertaken by the Department in conjunction with clinical specialists and manufacturers. Once sufficient information and clarification had been provided, the directorate was able to draft a pacemaker technical note for issue to all pacemaker implanting centres and follow-up clinics in the United Kingdom.
I heard what the hon. Lady said about the adequacy of the registry and about whether the identity of all centres was known. We must keep that matter constantly under review and ensure that we are aware of all centres. The technical note brought to the attention of relevant clinicians important information previously issued by Siemens in an advisory note, which was appended to the pacemaker technical note.
The hon. Lady mentioned delay. I am informed that 14 days, including weekends, elapsed from the moment the

documentary evidence was received by the Medical Devices Directorate, following an informal advice some days earlier, to the moment that our pacemaker technical note was issued. I do not think that is undue delay. We are talking about some technical instructions that have to be interpreted by people who make decisions about patients. They are not something that can be rushed out, for fear that decisions will be taken based on the wrong information. I do not think that there was undue delay in the case that the hon. Lady mentioned from January or February 1993.
The document advised clinicians that patients implanted with particular leads should be evaluated as soon as possible. This evaluation would include a specific test to check the performance of the lead. Since the risk of lead failure was calculated by the manufacturer to be less than 1 per cent. after one year, patient evaluation would not necessarily result in lead replacement in all cases. As I have already said, it is for the individual patient's doctor to weigh the risk of lead failure against the risk resulting from further surgery. A clinical judgment must always be made in the best interests of the patient.
I am sorry that I am unable to say more, but I end by saying that the replacement of a pacemaker lead—a possible course of action—is not a simple procedure. The electrode of the lead may be embedded in the heart tissue and, when a lead is replaced, the original lead is usually left in place. There is thus a limit to the extent to which the new lead can be fitted without causing damage to the heart. It is a complicated matter that we must—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.